Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MERSEY TUNNEL BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Privately-owned Industrial Pipelines (Legislation)

Mr. Arbuthnot: asked the Minister of Power if he will now make a further statement on Her Majesty's Government's policy on pipelines.

Mr. Warbey: asked the Minister of Power if he is now in a position to make a statement on his proposals for future pipeline development and for appropriate legislation.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Wood): The Government have decided that it is necessary to legislate, to secure in the national interest the orderly development of privately-owned industrial pipelines. The legislation will provide that, where there are objections by public bodies or private individuals to a project, those objections may be heard at a public inquiry and that, in appropriate cases, the Minister's decision will be subject to the approval of Parliament. Before I lay detailed proposals before Parliament, I shall consult the various interests that would be affected.

Mr. Arbuthnot: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his statement, may I ask him two questions? First, what type of case would he think should be referred individually to Parliament, and how does it differ from the others? Secondly, what effect does he expect his statement to have on the future of the Trunk Pipelines Bill, to which objections have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House?

Mr. Wood: In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, Parliamentary approval will certainly be required in any case where compulsory powers are asked for. Whether or not Parliamentary approval should be required in the other cases is, I think, a matter for consideration. I shall place my proposals before the House in due course. So far as the Trunk Pipelines Bill is concerned, I have said on two occasions that it is impossible for the Government to support the Bill. As the House will


realise, it would not be subject to the new procedure which the Government have decided should be applied to projects of this kind. I think the House would agree that the Trunk Pipelines Bill deals with a very important project, and it therefore might be expected to need this new procedure. I would add that I shall take the opportunity, if there is a debate on the Second Reading of the Trunk Pipelines Bill, fully to explain the Government's 'position.

Mr. Warbey: Will the Minister publish a White Paper setting out a summary of the information on which his proposals are based? Secondly, is he aware that, in the view of many hon. Members, these important new developments in the field of transportation ought to be undertaken by a public authority and not by private enterprise?

Mr. Wood: I have taken note of the hon. Member's view in the second part of his supplementary question. With regard to the first part, I think the difficulty here is that there is a great deal of information which the Government will want to collect from the interests concerned with a view to framing proposals for legislation. I think that the hon. Member's need might best be served by allowing me to collect this information and set proposals before Parliament which Parliament can then discuss and criticise.

Mr. Skeet: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether his pipeline proposals envisage the introduction of common carrier obligations into the United Kingdom?

Mr. Wood: I think that is very much a matter that I should consider in consultation with other interests.

Mr. Gunter: May I ask the Minister, in the first place, as this is a matter of transportation, whether it is the intention of the Government that the whole matter in his statement is to be in the hands of the Minister of Power himself? Secondly, can the Minister give us any idea at all when the legislation will be brought before this House? Thirdly, and this is to re-emphasise the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Warbey), in the light of the development of canals, railways and road haulage, and the tragedies that

have evolved from that unco-ordinated development, would it not be better that full power and authority should be given to a public corporation to develop this increasingly important part of our transportation system?

Mr. Wood: Regarding the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, there is a number of Ministers who would share responsibility, and I can think of a number of my right hon. Friends who would be concerned. No decision has been taken about which Department would be responsible. It would not be possible to legislate in this Session, but I see the need and I think the Government appreciate the need to make progress as quickly as possible. Thirdly, I should have thought there was a great deal to be said for continuing this development by private enterprise under suitable control.

Exports

Mr. Boyden: asked the Minister of Power if he will establish a joint committee consisting of representatives of the National Coal Board, British coal exporters and those industrialists exporting to Europe steam power plant, electricity generating equipment and other heavy plant using coal, with a view to integrating a British coal export drive with the general export drive.

Mr. Wood: I do not think there is any need for me to sponsor a formal committee. If the interests mentioned by the hon. Member think such an arrangement would be useful, I am sure they will come together amongst themselves.

Mr. Boyden: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that he has some responsibility in the matter of bringing them together? In the past British coal exports were extremely important, but under the present Government they have fallen to a very small proportion. Cannot the Minister use his initiative in this matter?

Mr. Wood: I do not know of any general desire among the constituent bodies for such an association. Naturally, if any of them took the view that such an association would be beneficial I should explore the matter and, if necessary, try to urge them to get together.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Northumberland

Mr. McKay: asked the Minister of Power how many miners below the age of 65 years were unemployed in Northumberland at the latest date; and what shortage of labour in pits in Northumberland arises from difficulties of transport or housing accommodation.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. J. C. George): on 13th February, 316 men and boys whose last employment was in coal-mining were unemployed in Northumberland. Recruitment is not being impeded by either transport difficulties or shortage of housing.

Mr. McKay: I thank the Minister for that information. Can he give the House any idea of the prospects of an increase in this number of unemployed?

Mr. George: The number of 316 unemployed represents less than 1 per cent. and the Coal Board is encouraging unemployed miners in that area to transfer to Yorkshire and the Midlands coalfields. They will receive appropriate allowances and, normally, will be moved only if housing is available.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF AVIATION

Heathrow and Gatwick Airports

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Aviation, in view of the fact that the proposed increased landing fees at Heathrow and Gatwick Airports will be the highest landing fees in the world and that these two airports compare unfavourably in passenger handling efficiency with foreign airports of a similar nature, if he will reconsider his policy in this connection with regard to the future of these two airports.

The Minister of Aviation (Mr. Peter Thorneycroft): No, Sir. I do not accept that the London Airports compare unfavourably with others. Figures quoted for landing fees are often quite misleading.

Mr. Cronin: Is not the Minister aware that there is widespread criticism of the amenities available to passengers, and the genera] passenger handling at London Airport and Gatwick Airport? If he is

unable to stabilise the landing charges, would he not at least achieve some increase in efficiency at both airports?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir, I am not aware of that.

Mr. John Hall: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the major airline companies are under the impression that the charges in general at London Airport are higher than anywhere else in the world? If that is not so, will he analyse the charges to show that they are mistaken?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate the point made by my hon. Friend, but it is completely impossible to analyse them. The degree of subsidy is not disclosed in the case of American airports. Some international body might do it, but I do not think that anyone has power to extract the necessary information.

Foreign Aircraft (Fuels)

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Aviation what steps he is taking to achieve safety for passengers arriving at and departing from civil airports in the United Kingdom, in view of the use by certain foreign airlines of J.P.4, a 60 per cent. petrol 40 per cent. kerosene mixture which ignites very easily, as fuel for jet and turbine-engined aircraft, instead of kerosene.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Fire precautions at civil airports in the United Kingdom are based on experience with highly inflammable aviation petrol which is still widely used in piston-engined aircraft. No special precautions are therefore necessary for J.P.4 fuel.

Mr. Cronin: Is it not the case that passengers travelling in aircraft using this fuel are much more likely to be exposed to extreme risk and danger than passengers travelling in aircraft fuelled with kerosene? Is it not, therefore, a responsibility of the Minister to see that some inquiry is made about this and also to see that passengers who travel on foreign airlines using this apparently dangerous fuel should be warned of the risk to which they are exposed?

Mr. Thorneycroft: The relative safety factors of J.P.1 and J.P.4 are a separate matter. We are doing some further studies on it and expert opinion is not unanimous. Regarding the specific point


which the hon. Gentleman asked about, the fire services are based on the use of highly inflammable petrol anyway, and so the point is irrelevant.

Mr. Cronin: May we take it that there will be an early publication of a report on safety aspects in the use of J.P.1 and J.P.4?

Mr. Thorneycroft: There has been wide publicity and many reports, but I will consider the hon. Gentleman's request.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the right hon. Gentleman give the assurance that there is little likelihood of danger arising because of the methods taken at London Airport to deal with the matter?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly there is no danger arising from the methods adopted at London Airport. We are dealing anyway with highly inflammable fuel used by piston-engined aircraft.

Thermionic Valves

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Aviation to what extent the production of thermionic valves in the United Kingdom is under the control of foreign ownership.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Probably the greater part of the domestic thermionic valves produced in this country is produced by companies in which foreign companies have a controlling interest. The position in respect of industrial thermionic valves is not known.

Mr. Shepherd: asked the Minister of Aviation whether the United Kingdom is a net importer or exporter of thermionic valves.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The United Kingdom is a net exporter of electronic and nucleonic valves of all types. No separate statistics relating to thermionic valves only are collected. But there is reason to believe that the United Kingdom is also a net exporter of thermionic valves.

Helicopters

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation whether the decision to base the future of a civil helicopter on the Belvedere replaces the decision to give a development contract for the Roto-

dyne; how much has been spent by the Government on the Rotodyne up to date; whether the offer of £1,400,000 to British European Airways to put the Rotodyne into service still stands; and what financial arrangements have been made for the development and proving of the Belvedere.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation if he is now prepared to develop a multi-engined transport helicopter suitable for inter-city use and for use between airports and cities.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir. Any arrangement I may consider for the civil version of the Belvedere could only be an interim stage in the evolution of an economic means of air transport between city centres. It would be contrary to normal practice to give details of payments under particular contracts.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister make clear that the Rotodyne is still the vehicle on which he is putting greatest emphasis in relation to future inter-city travel? If the question of noise cannot be dealt with, can be state whether he will agree to the Army taking over this helicopter for troop training? Can he say when we are likely to have a civil helicopter air service between, for example, Manchester and London and Birmingham and London?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I am afraid I cannot answer all those questions. I think the Rotodyne is the prototype nearest in the world to being economic as a helicopter, and it merits serious study to see whether we can deal with the noise and other factors and so warrant its introduction. I should not like to reply at the moment about the question of cost.

Rearward-Facing Seats

Mr. Hopkins: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will require, before issuing a certificate of airworthiness, that all passenger seats in passenger aircraft should be backwards facing.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I do not at present think it would be right to impose such a requirement on British operators; but the whole question is kept under review.

Mr. Hopkins: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, from the findings of the investigation into the Electra aircraft


crash in Boston, it appears that sixteen lives would have been saved if the plane had been so fitted? Will he consider this matter again?

Mr. Thorneycrott: I have seen preliminary reports to that effect, but the investigation is not complete. I am keeping in touch with the American authorities.

Sir G. Nicholson: Would this come under the heading of retrospective legislation?

Middle East Services

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Minister of Aviation whether he will give general directions to the British Overseas Airways Corporation and British European Airways to ensure the most useful and efficient air service to the Middle East, in order to further the national interest there and to avoid unnecessary and wasteful duplication of services.

Mr. Thorneycroft: If the hon. Gentleman will let me know what he has in mind I will look into it. I doubt, however, whether a general direction would achieve his object.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is not the Minister aware that, owing to the clash between B.O.A.C. and its associates and B.E.A. and its associates in the Middle East area, there is grave danger regarding the effective use by B.O.A.C. of its established position there? Is he aware also that because of the delicate political atmosphere in that area it is all the more necessary to have a co-ordinating policy between airlines operating in and out of the Middle East? If I send the Minister a memorandum on the matter, will he consider it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Certainly.

Sir B. Janner: When the right hon. Gentleman is considering the point raised by my hon. Friend, will he take steps to ensure that no racial or religious discrimination is exercised against any personnel employed by either of the Corporations in respect of flights to, or touching down at, any airport in the Middle East?

Mr. Thomeycroft: Both the hon. Gentleman and I know something of the complexities of this area, but I will certainly bear in mind what he says.

Radio Relay Broadcasts

Mr. Darling: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will exercise his powers under Section 3 (5) of the Air Corporations Act, 1949, to prohibit, in the public interest, the relaying by the British Overseas Airways Corporation of radio music and commercial advertisements to passengers in British Overseas Airways Corporation's aeroplanes.

Mr. Thorneycroft: No, Sir.

Mr. Darling: Would the right hon. Gentleman like to travel in an aircraft with the radio turning out canned music to the passengers? If he is on the side of the majority of passengers, as I think, who do not want such music to be inflicted on them, will he bear in mind that it is quite likely that if B.O.A.C. goes ahead with this project it will lose passengers to other airlines? In view of that, will he exercise his powers to stop it, in the public interest?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have some sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's view, but if it has that effect the music will very quickly stop.

Mr. Dugdale: Is the music to be received by personal instruments or to be broadcast to everybody in the plane regardless of whether they want it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I understand that a passenger can choose. He will have to plug in to listen.

Economies

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Aviation, in view of the increase of his estimated expenditure for 1960–61 to £212,772,945, if he will state what steps he is taking to secure economies in his department.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I take all necessary steps.

Mr. Hughes: What steps is the Minister taking to reduce the £300,000 a month, or £10,000 a day, which is now being wasted on Blue Streak? Does he think that I should be allowed to introduce him to a former Chancellor of the Exchequer who resigned because he thought that there was too much public expenditure?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is a jealous


guardian of my conscience in these matters, but I do not accept that the money in this case is being wasted.

Blue Streak

Mr. William Warbey: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will now state the total cost of the Blue Streak project from its inception to the latest available date; and what estimate he has made of the further terminal costs which will be involved if the project is now completely cancelled.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Aviation what is the current rate of expenditure on the Blue Streak project.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The total cost of the Blue Streak military project up to the date of cancellation and including an allowance for charges arising out of the cancellation of that project which have not been finally negotiated with the contractors amounted to some £84 million. The cost of work to keep a peaceful launcher project open as a possibility has been £2½ million up till the end of February, 1961. If the project were completely cancelled terminal costs would require negotiation and it would not help if I gave an estimate of them.

Mr. Warbey: Will the right hon. Gentleman look again at the figures for current maintenance costs, which he gave last week as £300,000 a month? Does that estimate include the cost of Spadeadam and Woomera? Does it include the research and development costs of the contractors? Is not the real figure nearer £2 million a month?

Mr. Thorneycroft: No. The figure obviously does not include the whole cost of Woomera, because Woomera is going on perfectly well without Blue Streak. Woomera is a very much bigger undertaking. All our main rockets and guided missiles are tested there. I said that the figure was "about £300,000". It is between £300,000 and £350,000.

Mr. K. Lewis: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that, in view of the present cost of old and new masters, this expense is quite reasonable?

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister make clear whether the £300,000 does include Spadeadam?

Mr. Thorneycroft: indicated assent.

Mr. Chetwynd: It does. Has the Minister seen the Guardian today? Will he read the feature article in it to see whether it is worth while going ahead with the project in these days?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I appreciate that there are plenty of faint hearts in matters of this kind. However, there is here a real possibility of something which could be of immense value to Europe. It would be foolish to cast that opportunity aside without exploring every possibility of going forward with it.

Woolsington Airport

Mr. Popplewell: asked the Minister of Aviation when he will announce his national policy for civilian airports; and when he will reply to the request made to him by a joint authority deputation which he recently met concerning the future of Woolsington Airport.

Mr. Thorneycroft: The formulation of a policy for civilian airports must necessarily involve considering the requirements of all parts of the country. As I informed the deputation, I shall reply to their request as soon as possible.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the Minister answer the Question? When does he hope to be able to make his declaration? Is he aware of the anxiety felt by all local authorities in the North-East, which are now working together on Woolsington Airport? Is he further aware that his delay in making his decision is very harmful indeed to the future development of the North-East? There is a growing volume of traffic at Woolsington. The buildings and equipment there are totally inadequate to meet those needs? Will the right hon. Gentleman regard the matter as urgent and indicate at any rate when he hopes to make his decision?

Mr. Thorneycroft: I cannot give any undertaking as to when I shall make the decision. Woolsington does not stand alone in this matter. There are a number of other airports, municipal and otherwise, and they have to be looked at as a whole.

Mr. Chetwynd: Will the Minister bear in mind that Woolsington is the only possible aerodrome for the North-East? There is a growing demand for services


for Continental travel. The earlier he can make a decision the better it will be for all concerned.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I fully appreciate that. I also appreciate the care and authority with which this question has been gone into by the local authorities concerned. They put their case to me with great moderation and clarity, which has assisted me very much in my consideration.

Mr. J. Howard: When my right hon. Friend has decided that certain aerodromes should be continued by private interests or local authorities, such as Southampton, will he ensure that his Department conducts the negotiations with the same sense of urgency as commercial undertakings would normally conduct negotiations?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Both with the same sense of urgency and, indeed, with the same care for the taxpayers' interests in such matters.

Spitfire Memorial, Turnhouse Airport

Mr. Stodart: asked the Minister of Aviation what communication he has received from No. 603 (City of Edinburgh) Squadron Association about the future of the Spitfire memorial aircraft at Turnhouse Airport; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Thorneycroft: I have told the Association that if ever the Royal Air Force leaves Turnhouse completely I will consider whether an alternative site for the Memorial Spitfire can be found on the aerodrome and that meanwhile there seems to be no reason why it should not remain where it is.

Mr. Stodart: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the great satisfaction which his reply will give to the citizens of Edinburgh, in view of the memories they hold of No. 603 Squadron and its wartime base at Turnhouse? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that plans are on foot for the replanning of the terminal buildings at Turnhouse? Will he consider the possibility of incorporating the memorial in the new terminal buildings? If not, can he give an assurance that in future he will always provide security for the Spitfire, even if he cannot completely undertake the costs of maintaining it?

Mr. Thorneycroft: Some of these matters are a little hypothetical, because I understand that the R.A.F. is at the moment staying at Turnhouse. I think I can say that this memorial to these very gallant men will be preserved in a suitable form.

Prestwick Airport

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Aviation if he will make a statement on the progress of the new terminal building developments at Prestwick Airport.

Mr. Thorneycroft: Work on the first phase of the terminal apron started on 9th February. On present planning tenders will be invited for the first contract for the terminal building in April with a view to starting work in June.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Infant Mortality, Merthyr

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister of Health what is the character of the inquiry being conducted into the infant mortality rate in the Merthyr area; whether a report will be published when the inquiry is completed; and whether similar inquiries are intended to be conducted in Monmouthshire and other areas in Wales where a high infant mortality rate exists.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Miss Edith Pitt): This is a field investigation into every branch of the services for mothers and babies which could have a bearing on perinatal mortality. It covers all Wales and is being carried out by medical officers of the Welsh Board of Health. The conclusions will be published.

Mr. Abse: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for that information. In the meantime, can she not at least ensure that in areas like Monmouthshire the number of maternity beds in existence is increased to the recommended Cranbrook standards? This is particularly important in view of the housing conditions there. Would she also in the meantime at least see if it is possible to increase the number of appointments in existence there so that there can be proper training for medical men to become fully qualified upon the obstetric register?

Miss Pitt: It is really another question, but in fact considerable developments are taking place in the hospital service and the maternity service in Wales. I will examine this matter and write to the hon. Gentleman.

Census Enumerators

Mr. Pitman: asked the Minister of Health (1) whether, in the coming census enumeration priority will be given in the appointment of enumerators to those in retirement, particularly to retired civil servants whose unestablished service prior to 1949 does not count in full for superannuation;
(2) whether he will issue guidance to local education authorities supplementary to Administrative Memorandum No. 1/61 issued by the Minister of Education, to ensure that priority in the recruitment of enumerators for the census is given wherever possible to retired teachers and that those on full earnings should not be allowed to stand in the way of suitable recruits whose earnings have ceased.

Miss Pitt: The instructions about appointment of enumerators provide that special consideration should be given to persons put forward by employment exchanges. These will include retired Persons who have registered for suitable work, including retired civil servants and teachers.

Mr. Pitman: Is my hon. Friend aware that, for instance, the First Lord of the Admiralty in Bath has circulated to all members of his staff a notice about the employment of enumerators and offering leave on full pay to those people who care to apply? Will it be at all possible to ensure that these posts are notified at the local employment exchange so that people may hear about them? My information is that the employment exchange does not sufficiently advertise such posts and retired people are thereby not being given an opportunity to apply.

Miss Pitt: The appointment of the enumerators is a matter for the local census officers to whom, in fact, it has been delegated, but I understand that all employment exchanges have been asked to help where suitable people are available. The work involves a particular

aptitude for dealing with the public, because this is a confidential inquiry, and it also involves some physical capacity, because of the walking, but I would expect a proportion of retired people to make a contribution.

Mr. Pitman: The question is how does an employment exchange find out the names and addresses of people who would apply, because those people would not normally be registered at the employment exchange for the purpose of getting jobs?

Miss Pitt: It must be assumed that if people want work they will have registered with the employment exchanges.

Poliomyelitis

Mrs. McLaughlin: asked the Minister of Health why it is not possible for persons over 40 years of age to be vaccinated for poliomyelitis except by their general practitioners.

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Arrangements are made through local authorities where general immunisation is aimed at. This is not necessary for those over 40, whose natural immunity against poliomyelitis is normally high.

Mrs. McLaughlin: Is the Minister aware that in many cases mass vaccination is offered at factories and other places of work and matters are made very difficult if age discrimination is to come in? Where this vaccination is being done, is it not possible for the Minister to remove this age barrier?

Mr. Powell: Mass vaccination with a view to obtaining 100 per cent. immunity is medically called for only up to the age of 40, and I do not think that it would be justifiable to put this obligation on the local authorities in relation to people over that age.

Public Health Inspectors

Mrs. Slater: asked the Minister of Health what steps are being taken to recruit more public health inspectors.

Miss Pitt: Measures already taken have led to a substantial improvement in the rate of recruitment, which is expected to continue.

Mrs. Slater: Is the hon. Lady satisfied that, in the first place, the salary attracts the right people to this occupation? Secondly, is she aware that most large cities are dreadfully short of public health inspectors and that the Clean Air Act, food and drugs legislation and slum clearance programmes are putting a very real burden on every local authority of any size? Could not this question of salary be looked at again?

Miss Pitt: The salaries were increased as recently as September of last year, and I think that that, combined with the new title of public health inspector as compared with sanitary inspector, is stimulating recruitment. In any event, the figures make the case. Over the last three years the total number of men who have qualified as public health inspectors exceeds, on average, the figure of 200 a year recommended by the working party. The figures are: 1958, 198; 1959, 214; and 1960, 198. I would add that I know that there are certain difficulties in the large industrial areas.

Opticians (Salaries)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Minister of Health what representations for a salary increase he has received from the staff side of the Optical Whitley Council; and what reply he has made.

Mr. Powell: A claim for increased salaries for opticians in the Hospital Eye Service has been received by the management side of the Optical Whitley Council and is being considered.

Mr. Allaun: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the salary for recently qualified opticians is only £615 a year, whereas they can get from £1,100 to £1,200 in private practice, the maximum salary in hospitals never rising to £1,000? Is it any wonder, therefore, that great hospitals such as Manchester Eye Hospital have only half the necessary stall, which involves long waits by patients, two hours being quite common, and that the staff are sometimes forced to curtail the attention that they give to the patients? Will the right hon. Gentleman bear these facts in mind and

give the matter urgent and sympathetic attention?

Mr. Powell: The particular case to which the hon. Member referred is a separate matter from that which is raised in this Question. As regards the hon. Member's general observations, I do not think I ought to comment before I receive the recommendation of the Council.

Reciprocal Arrangements

Mr. Cooper: asked the Minister of Health if he will give details of those countries with whom he is presently negotiating for reciprocal services so far as the National Health Service is concerned.

Mr. Powell: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance negotiates for me on this matter whenever practicable when negotiating for reciprocal agreements on social security. I understand that no such agreements are under active negotiation at present.

Mr. Cooper: Bearing in mind the very substantial facilities which are available to foreigners on visiting this country, can we be assured that every opportunity will be taken to negotiate similar arrangements on behalf of British subjects entering foreign countries?

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cooper: asked the Minister of Health if he will publish in the OFFICIAL REPORT details of those countries with which Her Majesty's Government have reciprocal arrangements so far as the National Health Service is concerned, together with details of the service provided.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Cooper: In view of the imminence of the holiday season, and bearing in mind that many thousands of British subjects will be travelling abroad, will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of publishing some leaflet which can be made available to travellers leaving all ports in this country, giving them details of these facilities, since I


am sure that vast numbers of people are totally unaware that such reciprocal arrangements are available to them?

COUNTRIES WITH WHICH THE UNITED KINGDOM HAS RECIPROCAL ARRANGEMENTS RELATING TO MEDICAL SERVICES

NOTES:

1. Beneficiaries are required to satisfy the conditions imposed by the legislation of the country concerned.

2. Details of the services available are subject to alteration from time to time; the information given in the latest available.

Country
Persons covered
Services available


Australia
All persons who are entitled to receive Australian old age, widows' or invalidity pensions and their dependants.
Treatment by a general medical practitioner and the supply of drugs are free.




Treatment in hospital is not free but patients receive a sum of money for each day in hospital.


Belgium
Provided illness did not begin until after entry into Belgium, the following are covered.
The service is comprehensive, and is immediately available to those who take up insured employment in Belgium within 30 days of leaving insured employment in the U.K. Others qualify after a waiting period.



1. Persons who are in Belgium for the purpose of employment and are insured as employed persons either under U.K. or Belgian scheme.
The beneficiary pays expenses, and claims refund in accordance with a scale.



2. Persons who ordinarily live in Belgium and who are entitled to British old age pension or long term sickness benefit, i.e. for sickness of more than 312 days duration.




3. Dependants of 1 and 2 above, if they ordinarily live in Belgium.




British insurance periods (employed persons') can count towards satisfaction of the Belgian conditions.



Denmark
Persons who fall ill suddenly, meet with an accident or for any other reason are in urgent need of medical benefit while they are temporarily in Denmark. Tourists are included. U.K. nationals resident in Denmark may join a Danish sickness fund.
Hospital treatment is free for all, and persons earning less than about £725 per annum may have general medical treatment and maternity care free as well. Those who earn more than this have to pay part of the cost of medical treatment. Certain drugs are available to all at less than cost price.


France
1. Persons who are insured under the French scheme, and their dependants, and people entitled to receive old age pension on the basis of combined British and French insurance.
The beneficiary pays the cost of treatment and claims a refund amounting to 80 per cent. of a scheduled fee for medical, dental and hospital treatment (90 per cent. for drugs). The scheduled fee is in fact often less than the fee charged. No refund is made for major surgical operations. Maternity care is free.



Persons entitled to receive old age pension on British insurance alone; or British industrial disablement pension or long term sickness benefit, provided they become voluntary contributors under the French scheme and satisfy the conditions of that scheme.



Israel
1. Persons entitled to receive U.K. Industrial Injury benefits.
1. Persons receiving injury benefit under the U.K. Industrial Injuries Acts may receive such medical treatment as they would have received had they been in receipt of the corresponding benefit under the legislation of Israel.



2. Women, confined in Israel, who are entitled to a U.K. maternity grant.
2. Women confined in Israel and entitled to a U.K. maternity grant may receive hospital treatment under the same terms as Israeli women.

Mr. Powell: I should like to consider that suggestion.

Following are the details:




Country
Persons covered
Services available


Italy
All persons employed and insured in Italy and certain approved classes of dependants.
Beneficiaries must become insured with one of the Italian insurance institutes and the extent of benefits differs from one institute to another. Medical, dental and hospital treatment is free for limited periods. Drugs and maternity cases are free. Charges may be made towards the cost of appliances.


Luxembourg
1. Persons who are in Luxembourg for the purpose of employment and are insured under the British or Luxembourg scheme.
Intending beneficiaries must become members of one of the Luxembourg insurance funds and the extent of benefits differs from one fund to another. The funds reimburse the whole cost of general medical treatment, the whole cost of treatment in hospital for most classes of patient and part of the cost for others, part of the cost of drugs, the whole cost of dental treatment but only part of the cost of dentures, and the whole of the cost of appliances obtained by insured persons—but only part of the cost if obtained by dependants.



2. Persons living in Luxembourg and entitled to U.K. benefit other than orphan's pension.




3. Dependants of 1 and 2 if ordinarily resident in Luxembourg.




4. Orphans ordinarily resident in Luxembourg for whom U.K. orphan's benefit is being paid.




British insurance periods count towards satisfaction of the Luxembourg conditions.



Malta
Persons entitled to receive U.K. industrial injury or disablement benefits.
These persons may receive such medical treatment as they would have received had the benefit been awarded under the legislation of Malta.


Netherlands
As for Luxembourg
The service is comprehensive, but free treatment in hospital is limited to 70 days. The supply and repair of appliances is reimbursed up to a certain maximum (100 per cent. for artificial limbs, and 75 per cent. for other items).


New Zealand
All persons except seamen (tourists are included).
The service is comprehensive save that dental benefits are available only to persons under 19 years of age. Some charges are made: e.g. for some appliances, for physiotherapy, and towards the cost of domestic assistance.


Norway
Persons not ordinarily resident in Norway, who are liable for U.K. contributions whilst employed in Norway.
Treatment as an in-patient in hospital is free. Between two-thirds and three-quarters of the prescribed fee for treatment as a hospital out-patient or by a general medical practitioner is reimbursed. Drugs are paid for by the patient. The cost of some dental treatment is partially reimbursed.



2. U.K. nationals employed in Norway in the Government service of any country, and their dependants.




3. Persons who are in the private service of those at 2 above.




4. Persons who are insured under the Norwegian scheme of health insurance.




5. Visitors from this country (including tourists) who are not insured under the Norwegian scheme of health insurance.



Sweden
1. Persons not ordinarily resident in Sweden, who are liable for U.K. contributions whilst employed in Sweden.
In-patient treatment in hospital is free. Dental treatment does not come within the scheme.



2. U.K. nationals employed in Sweden in the Government service of any country other than Sweden, and their dependants.
Charges may be made for certain drugs. The patient may reclaim up to three-quarters of the cost of general medical practitioner's fees.



3. Persons who are in the private service of those at 2 above.








Country
Persons covered
Services available



4. Persons who are members of a Swedish sickness fund.




5. Visitors from this country (including tourists) who are not members of a Swedish sickness fund.



Switzerland
Persons who have paid or been credited with U.K. contributions for 13 consecutive weeks and who apply within 3 months of that period for membership of a Swiss Sickness Insurance Fund, and their dependants.
Intending beneficiaries must become members of one of the Swiss funds, and the extent of benefits differs from one fund to another. With the exception of dental treatment and certain medical supplies, a comprehensive service is provided. Beneficiaries pay between 10 and 25 per cent. of the cost.


Yugoslavia
People insured under the British national insurance scheme, including old age pensioners, students and apprentices, who are in Yugoslavia, and their dependants. Tourists are included.
The service is comprehensive and free.

Prescription Charges

Mr. Pentland: asked the Minister of Health whether he will state the number of individuals, associations and organisations who have made representation to him protesting against the proposed increases in the National Health Service charges; and what has been the nature of his replies.

Mr. Powell: About 900. The replies vary according to the matters raised.

Mr. Pentland: Is the Minister aware that all Members on this side of the House have been inundated with letters from our constituents protesting against these proposed increased charges? Is it not obvious that the majority of the people in the country believe this to be one of the most disgraceful measures ever taken by any Government? In view of this fact, will not he have another look at the matter even at this late stage, bearing in mind the consequences which will arise to millions of the poorest people in this country?

Mr. Powell: On the contrary, I believe that the great majority of people in this country accept and support the priorities which underlie the decision that I announced.

Mr. K. Robinson: Is the Minister aware that if he had had the letters that my hon. Friends have received about these increased charges he would never have given the reply that he has just given? Is it possible that we on this side of the House get more letters because

the writers are more certain of a sympathetic response?

Mr. Oram: asked the Minister of Health how many items are listed in the British National Formulary, 1960; and for how many of these the retail price of the standard quantity is less than 2s.

Miss Pitt: Five hundred and sixty-seven. The second part of the Question cannot be answered exactly, but the number must be very small.

Mr. Oram: Is the hon. Lady aware that it was my own doctor, in whose power to count I have considerable faith, who kindly made the calculation for me from his copy, and he finds that 243 items are less than 2s.? Does this not mean that patients will be required to pay more than the retail price for nearly half the items in the Formulary, and is it not completely unjust to charge an excess price in this way?

Miss Pitt: The number under 2s. is quite small. I am asked about drugs. Those that come readily to mind are calamine lotion, zinc ointment, aspirin tablets and compound codeines. I agree that in many cases dressings may be under 2s. Many of the 567 preparations are listed in several strengths, and this affects their price, and also different chemists may charge different prices for counter sales. It is impossible to give exact information about the preparations patients can obtain for less than 2s.

Mr. F. Harris: Will my hon. Friend appreciate that this is a very real problem requiring thorough investigation


because people are being put to great disadvantage as a result of what is being done?

Miss Pitt: The next Question on the Order Paper should be helpful.

Mr. Oram: asked the Minister of Health what steps he proposes to take to ensure that a patient is not required to pay 2s. for an item prescribed under the National Health Service for which the ordinary retail price is less than 2s.

Mr. Powell: I expect the chemist to sell such items at the retail price. Guidance has already been given to chemists by their professional organisation, and I am considering with them what further guidance, if any, is needed.

Mr. Oram: That helpful Answer is much appreciated. The evidence which I produced on the former Question shows that this is a very serious problem, as the hon. Member for Croydon, North-West (Mr. F. Harris) said. Will the right hon. Gentleman give full attention to this matter to make sure that no injustice is done?

Mr. Powell: Certainly. But to put the matter in perspective, may I say that there will be only a small percentage of the items on prescription of which the retail price is under 2s.

Mr. K. Robinson: To get the matter quite clear, is the right hon. Gentleman saying that a chemist is entitled to alter the doctor's prescription and to strike off an item if he can supply it over the counter for less than 2s., because hitherto a number of chemists have been under the impression that in no circumstances are they allowed to alter a doctor's prescription?

Mr. Powell: Yes. The item is marked "Not dispensed" and the prescription form so marked is then returned to the executive council.

Mr. Lipton: Would it not help the House and the public generally to assess the value of the undertaking which the right hon. Gentleman has given if he indicated how many of the National Health Service prescriptions during 1960 cost less than 2s. each?

Mr. Powell: There is a Question on the Order Paper on that matter.

Mr. Lipton: Then answer it.

Maternity Services (Report)

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he has completed discussions with the medical profession about the outstanding recommendations of the Cranbrook Report and, in particular, those relating to the obstetric list and to the establishment of maternity services liaison committees; and what decisions he has reached.

Mr. Powell: Yes, Sir, apart from a few minor points. Uniform criteria for admission to the obstetric list were introduced in January, 1961, and it was announced that the experience of doctors already on the list would be reviewed after five years. Hospital authorities were asked in July, 1959 to take the initiative in establishing maternity services liaison committees.

Mr. Robinson: Does the Minister know that many hospitals, including several of the London teaching hospitals, have not yet set up these committees, and some of the committees which have been set up are functioning far from satisfactorily? Will he look into this? Further, may we now take it that, subject to the arrangement he announced today, which is to come into force, he fully accepts the recommendations of the Cranbrook Committee about the obstetric list?

Mr. Powell: The criteria which have been agreed with the professions are broadly, though not exactly, in line with the recommendations of the Cranbrook Report. They are founded upon them and they reflect them. I will certainly look at the functioning of the liaison committees which have been set up. My information is that the majority of hospital management committees have them.

Medical Education

Mr. K. Robinson: asked the Minister of Health if he will advise the setting up of a Royal Commission on medical education in Great Britain.

Mr. Powell: No, Sir. The General Medical Council, which is responsible for maintaining the standards of medical education, published revised recommendations on the medical curriculum in 1957, after extensive consultations with the other bodies concerned with medical education and practice. I understand


that it has recently received from medical schools reports on the implementation of these recommendations and that these are being considered.

Mr. Robinson: Even allowing for these recommendations, is not medical teaching in this country now many years behind that in the United States and many European countries, and does the Minister realise that that view is shared by many younger doctors and medical students and most psychiatrists because it is particularly backward in the teaching of psychological medicine? If any improvement is to be made, must not some initiative come from him, because it is no use leaving the matter in the hands of just those leaders of the medical profession who are responsible for the out-of-date curricula which we have?

Mr. Powell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the responsibility of the Minister of Health for medical education is necessarily and deliberately extremely limited. I have no reason to doubt that the General Medical Council's recommendations took full account of the need for expansion in psychological medicine, and this will be reflected in the results it is now considering.

Mr. Abse: Does the Minister recognise that so laggard is medical education in Wales that, despite more than a decade of pressure from the regional hospital board, we are still without a chair and department of psychiatry? Will he continue to take action to carry forward what has been indicated as necessary by the Minister for Welsh Affairs and ensure that medical students in Wales can have a proper education in psychiatry?

Mr. Powell: I think that that is not a question for me.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport

Mr. Abse: asked the Minister of Health whether he is aware of the delays suffered by patients from the valleys of Monmouthshire at the casualty department of the Royal Gwent Hospital, Newport, Monmouthshire; and what action will be taken to end such delays

and to improve the accommodation and facilities available at the department.

Miss Pitt: Yes, Sir; urgent improvements to this casualty department are being considered.

Mr. Abse: I thank the hon. Lady for informing me that they are being considered, but would she give an assurance that something is being done? Is she aware that at the moment there is no consultant surgeon in charge of this department? Is she further aware that emergency operations resulting from accidents are taken at the end of the daily lists and, therefore, have to be done at night? Will not she give an assurance that these facilities will be provided without waiting for the Minister of Health to collect sufficient shillings from the aged and chronic sick?

Miss Pitt: The hon. Gentleman's information is not the same as mine. I am told that urgent cases are dealt with quickly and that it is with the minor cases that there is some delay. Nevertheless, on the general question, two centrally-financed schemes have been announced for the hospital, and there is a long-term plan for the eventual rebuilding of the hospital. Furthermore, in the long term, the new hospital for Abergavenny will help very considerably with casualties in Monmouthshire.

Radiation Cases

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Health what arrangements have been made with hospitals for the specialised treatment of radiation cases in the neighbourhood of atomic power stations when emergencies occur, in view of previous accidents at Windscale and Aldermaston.

Mr. Powell: Arrangements have been made for the nearest suitably-equipped hospital to provide medical care for radiation cases, where this is necessary to supplement the specialised facilities at the station itself. I am informed that the Aldermaston accident did not involve radioactivity, and that in the Windscale accident the question of specialised treatment did not arise.

Mr. Brockway: Is not the Minister being a little too complacent in this


matter? Is he aware that when a nuclear research station in the neighbourhood of London approached a hospital for these facilities there were no special facilities and no special preparations, although I am sure that the hospital would do its utmost? Is it not possible to have one hospital in London which would serve all the nuclear stations around London, and similar hospitals in the neighbourhood of all nuclear stations?

Mr. Powell: The Question refers to atomic power stations, but I will look at the case the hon. Gentleman mentions.

Children's Howe, Bognor Regis

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Health on what grounds the plan for a home for mentally-handicapped children at Bognor Regis was abandoned.

Miss Pitt: I am not aware that any such plan has been abandoned.

Mr. Brockway: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for that reply, but is it not the case that a large London hospital wished to open a home for mentally-defective children at Bognor Regis, that two private schools objected to this and that, as a result, the local council reversed its decision? Can she inform the House what developments there have been?

Miss Pitt: It is the case that a London hospital has been given authority by its appropriate board to look for a convalescent home on the South Coast. Those concerned looked at the place to which the hon. Gentleman has referred but, on inspection, some doubt was expressed as to whether the local planning authority would agree to its being used for this purpose because of the two schools adjacent to it. Doubt was also expressed about whether the premises were of sufficient size. As a result, the hospital management committee did not proceed further to consider the building in question. No other proposal has come before my right hon. Friend.

Mr. K. Robinson: Would not the hon. Lady agree that projects of this kind are constantly being frustrated as a result of local difficulties being raised about siting, and about other properties? Is there anything gnat my right hon. Friend could do, perhaps in conjunction with the

Minister of Housing, to try to influence local planning authorities to be a little more sympathetic towards this kind of development?

Miss Pitt: It is, perhaps, a little unfair to say that they are constantly in difficulty. We have had another case before the House recently, I know, but what we can do to help in obtaining suitable premises, we certainly do.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of that unsatisfactory reply, I beg to give notice that, if necessary, I will raise this subject at the first opportunity.

Balderton Hospital

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Minister of Health how many children will be accommodated in the new children's villas now building at Balderton Hospital; and when it is expected that these villas will be completed.

Mr. Powell: 156 children. I expect the villas to be completed before the end of next year.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Is my right hon. Friend aware that recently in my constituency there have been three particularly sad cases of mentally-deficient and severely-handicapped children who have been waiting for years for permanent hospital accommodation? In one case there has been a waiting period of over eight years, and in some cases parents have collapsed and become seriously ill as the result of keeping these children at home? Is he aware that their only hope is these new villas at Balderton, and will my right hon. Friend do all that he possibly can to see whether the building and staffing of the villas can be accelerated even further?

Mr. Powell: I am aware of the urgent need for this accommodation and of the difficulties and burdens imposed on the families of children on the waiting lists. I expect the work to begin next month, and I will keep in touch with its progress.

Newcastle

Mr. Grey: asked the Minister of Health, having regard to the increase in the number of people waiting for hospital beds in the Newcastle Region, what


immediate steps he proposes to alleviate the position before the result of the proposed inquiry is made known.

Mr. Powell: I anticipate that current measures to reduce the total waiting lists in this region will be reinforced by the £1 million scheme announced in January for the Royal Victoria Infirmary.

Mr. Grey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the serious position concerning hospital beds in the North-East? Is he further aware that when he announced, a few weeks ago, that there was to be an inquiry into the matter there was a certain amount of satisfaction, but that great dismay was displayed by Members for the north-east area when it was announced that the inquiry would take two years to complete? Does he not think that is a long time to take over an inquiry?

Mr. Powell: Nothing is being held up awaiting the outcome of the inquiry, the results of which, I believe, will be valuable not only in the Newcastle area but in the country generally. It is a fact that the regional hospital board's total waiting lists have been falling recently, and the factors of recruitment and bed utilisation which have been having this result should continue to have that effect, but nothing is awaiting the result of the inquiry.

New Hospital, Bradford

Mr. Tiley: asked the Minister of Health when work will begin on the new hospital in Bradford which is to replace the Royal Eye and Ear Hospital, in view of the long period which has elapsed since it was announced that the money was available for this project.

Mr. George Craddock: asked the Minister of Health, in view of the fact that more than two years ago £500,000 was allocated for the erection of a new Bradford Royal Eye and Ear Hospital to serve the 146,000 contributors and their families, all of whom are former, present or potential patients of the hospital, if he will now state the date when building will commence.

Mr. Powell: The sketch plans are under consideration, but I cannot yet give a commencement date.

Mr. Tiley: Is not my right hon. Friend consumed with anxiety at the lengthy

delay of nearly two-and-a-half years which has taken place since this hospital, which is so urgently needed in the City of Bradford, was first planned? What can there be left to discuss after such a long period? Is there not something wrong with the system of building new hospitals? Is my right hon. Friend not aware that wherever new hospitals are planned there is disquiet in the country at these delays? Why is it that we can make such an advance in all other types of building and so little advance in building hospitals after they are planned?

Mr. Powell: I hope that the new procedures, which I announced in January, will result in greater expedition in the various stages of the creation of new hospitals and will result in much more certainty, further in advance, as to what is going to happen then.

Mr. Craddock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that delay has upset the calculations of both doctors and staff, who have had to work under very cramped conditions? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, as the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) said just now, all the necessary information has been to hand for more than two years, and is it not time that the Minister gave the green light for building to commence?

Mr. Powell: The sketch plans for this hospital were received in my Department only in December.

Mr. Snow: Is this not a case where the Minister might usefully look into the organisation and methods aspect of the regional architect's department? Is he aware that, judging by the example of Birmingham some years ago, this is a department which, more than any other department, can cause untoward delays in the completion of hospitals?

Mr. Powell: I think that the methods which I announced in January are of the greatest importance in producing greater uniformity and in streamlining all hospital planning procedure.

Mr. Tiley: In view of the fact that the sketch plans were received last December, that means a delay of two years prior to the announcement of the plan and the reception of the sketch plan. Cannot something be done to speed


that process? In view of my right hon. Friend's interest in timetables, can he set a timetable for the commencement of this hospital? Otherwise we shall go on talking and planning for years.

Mr. Powell: I have already announced that I hope as soon as possible to give commencing dates for all the major schemes for which I or my predecessors have announced approval.

Leek, Cheadle, Biddulph and Kidsgrove

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Health how many people are on the waiting list for a hospital bed in the towns of Leek, Cheadle, Biddulph, and Kidsgrove, in the Leek Parliamentary Division.

Mr. Powell: These towns are served by several hospitals, and the waiting lists are not analysed by place of residence.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that the area is served by several hospitals but that the North Staffordshire Infirmary serves the whole of the area? Can he say whether the waiting list compares favourably with the rest of the West Midlands? There is a feeling that we in North Staffordshire, which is a growing industrial area, are not getting the attention we deserve.

Mr. Powell: If the hon. Member is interested in the waiting list at the North Staffordshire Infirmary and will put down a Question, I will give him the Answer.

Mr. Harold Davies: asked the Minister of Health when a decision will be made for a new hospital in the Leek or Cheadle area; and when the project will be in service.

Mr. Powell: I have received no proposals for such a project from the regional board.

Mr. Davies: Is the Minister aware that both public and Press are suggesting that a project such as this is to go forward for a new hospital either in Leek or in Cheadle, and does he realise that such a hospital is badly needed because of the distance to the main North Staffordshire Hospital? Will he ensure that the project receives favourable consideration in his Ministry, if at all possible?

Mr. Powell: I have asked the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board, as I have asked all regional boards, to give me its view of work which ought to be commenced in the next ten years. I shall be interested to see its proposals for North Staffordshire.

Interior Design

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Minister of Health if he will draw the attention of regional hospital boards to the desirability of achieving a high standard of interior design in hospitals and of employing professional consultant interior designers; to what extent professional advice is now sought on these matters; and how far his Department and regional hospital boards now use the facilities and resources of the Council of Industrial Design.

Mr. Powell: My Department is in touch with the Council of Industrial Design, and hospital authorities are making increasing use of its facilities and of professional advice on interior design. I am satisfied that boards appreciate the importance of a high standard in this respect.

Mr. Noel-Baker: I thank the Minister for that Answer. I beg him to do what he personally can to see that close liaison is developed and maintained with the Council, which is really highly qualified in these matters. Further, will he accept that there is some way still to go in this direction and there are some backward hospitals and backward boards? Will he do all he can to encourage co-operation with the C.O.I.D.?

Mr. Powell: This is certainly an important aspect of hospital planning, and, incidentally, it is one which experience in the hon. Gentleman's own constituency carried a stage further.

Warlingham Park Mental Hospital (Girl Patient)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Heath on what date the 14-year-old girl, details of whom have been provided by the hon. Member for Erith and Cray-ford, was sent to the Warlingham Park Mental Hospital and placed in an adult ward with compulsorily detained elderly patients; and, in view of the unsatisfactory position of this girl, what action is being taken to ensure that she is


removed to more satisfactory surroundings with as little delay as possible.

Mr. Powell: On 31st August last. She is in an open ward where the staff are specially skilled in dealing with her kind of case, and most of the patients are young or middle-aged. She has responded well to treatment and is expected shortly to go to another hospital for a course of training.

Mr. Dodds: Is the Minister aware that she went there when she was 14 years of age, and there are no educational facilities there? Further, is he aware that the head of the Kent County Council Welfare Department has said that it was lamentable that there were no facilities suitable for a girl like this and the doctors share his concern that it was necessary to place her in a ward with adults? What does the Minister mean by writing to say that a girl can often benefit from being with older women? Does he not appreciate that, although this might be true if the older women were sane, this girl has been with elderly women in a ward who would cry out at night, and is it not deplorable that a young girl should be put in conditions like that?

Mr. Powell: Of the patients in that ward last November, seven were 21 years of age and under, ten were between 21 and 35, and only eight were over 50 years of age. The hon. Member will be aware that treatment in wards of patients with a wide variety of ages can in some cases be both satisfactory and successful, and in this instance it has proved so.

Mr. Dodds: But is not the Minister aware that this young girl complains of swearing in the ward and that the elderly patients who are compulsorily detained cry out at night? I pay a tribute to the nurses and doctors who

really feel that she should not be in the ward and who have done the best they can for her.

Mr. Powell: I am glad that the hon. Member paid that tribute to the doctors. It was the opinion of those doctors that she was best treated in this ward.

Mr. Dodds: No.

COMMONWEALTH MEMBERSHIP (CYPRUS)

Mr. F. Noel-Baker: asked the Prime Minister what communication has been received from the President of Cyprus regarding membership of the Commonwealth; what reply has been made; and whether he will invite the President to attend the next meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 2nd March by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.

Mr. Noel-Baker: That does not carry us very much further. Is it the intention to invite the President of Cyprus to the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference which is now taking place? Is he not anxious to use this opportunity to pay tribute to the generous realism and fair-minded statesmanship of that important Commonwealth leader?

Mr. Butler: I am quite ready to accept the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary. The question of the President's attendance will depend upon decisions reached by the Commonwealth Prime Ministers when the application from Cyprus is considered.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE CONTRIBUTIONS BILL AND NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE BILL (ALLOCATION OF TIME)

3 30 p.m.


The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the National Health Service Contributions Bill and the National Health Service Bill—

5
National Health Service Contributions Bill



1. The remaining Proceedings in Committee on the National Health Service Contributions Bill shall be completed in two allotted days, and shall be brought to a conclusion or interrupted, as the case may be, at the times shown in the following Table:—

Proceedings
Time for conclusion or interruption


10
Clause 2, new Clauses (if any) and First Schedule.
(a) To be interrupted at 11.30 p.m. on the first allotted day.




(b) To be brought to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m. on the second allotted day.


15
Second Schedule, new Schedules (if any) 15 and any other Proceedings necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.
To be brought to a conclusion at 11.30 p.m. on the second allotted day.

20
2.—(1) Any Proceedings which, by virtue of this Order, are interrupted at a particular time on the first allotted day shall not thereafter be resumed on that day, but without 20 prejudice to the resumption thereof on the second allotted day.


(2) On any such interruption by virtue of this Order the Chairman shall leave the Chair without putting any question, and shall report progress and ask leave to sit again.


25
3. The Proceedings on Consideration (if any) and the Proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and shall be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on that day.


4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule.


30
5. If, on any of the said allotted days, a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), the bringing to a conclusion, or interruption, of any Proceedings which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion, or interrupted, on that day shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion under Standing Order No. 9.


35
6. Any Private Business which has been set down for consideration at seven o'clock on any of the said allotted days shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion (or, in the case of the first allotted day, at the interruption under this Order) of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and shall be exempted by this paragraph from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period of three hours, or, if the Proceedings on the Bill are concluded before half-past ten o'clock, for a period (from ten o'clock) equal to the time
elapsing between seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.


40
7. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.


45
8. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, including a Committee to which the Bill has been re-committed (whether as a whole or otherwise), the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any question.


50
9. This Order shall have effect notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders, and notwithstanding the Practice of the House relating to the intervals between the stages of any Bill, and Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to this Order in so far as it relates to the National Health Service Contributions Bill.

National health Service Bill


55
10.——(a) The Standing Committee to which the National Health Service Bill is committed shall report the Bill to the House on or before the twenty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one;

(b) at a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion;


60
(c) no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill or the adjournment of the Standing Committee shall be made in the Standing Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the question on any such Motion, if made by a Member of the Government, shall be put forthwith without any debate; and


65
(d) on the conclusion of the Committee Stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any question.


70
11. The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past ten o'clock on that day; and for the purpose of Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such portion of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.


75
12. The Business Committee shall report to the House their recommendations as to the Proceedings on Consideration, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and the Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the twenty-third day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.



13. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the recommendation of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.


80
14. On the allotted day referred to in paragraph 11 of this Order Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect with the substitution of references to half-past ten of the clock for references to ten of the clock, and Proceedings which under this Order or the Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall not be interrupted under the provisions of the said Standing Order.


85
15. If, on the last-mentioned allotted day, a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), the last preceding paragraph of this Order shall not apply, but—


90
(a) any Proceedings on the Bill exempted under paragraph (2) of that Standing Order shall be so exempted for the period mentioned in that paragraph and a further half-hour; and


(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or under the Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day after seven o'clock shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the said Motion under Standing Order No. 9.


95
16. If, at seven o'clock on the said allotted day, any Proceedings on the Bill which, under the Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.


100


105
17. Any Private Business which has been set down for consideration at seven o'clock on the said allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and shall be exempted by this paragraph from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period of three hours or, if the Proceedings on the Bill are concluded before half-past ten o'clock, for a period (from ten o'clock) equal to the time elapsing between seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

General


110
18. Standing Order No. 12 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) shall not apply to any allotted day.


19. On an allotted day no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on either of the Bills shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate.


115
20. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which under this Order (or, in the case of the National Health Service Bill, under this Order or under the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or of the Business Committee) are to be brought to a conclusion at a particular time and have not previously been concluded, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at that time, put forthwith the question on any amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, also the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, and subject thereto shall proceed to put forthwith the question on any amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a Member of the Government of which notice has been given (but no other amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules) and any question necessary for the disposal of the


120

125
Business to be concluded, and, in the case of any amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a Member of the Government, he shall put only the question that the amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.


130
21. The Proceedings on any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order or of the Resolution of the Business Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced, and the last preceding paragraph of this Order shall, so far as applicable, apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on one or other of the Bills:


135
Provided that if the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on efinite matter of urgent public importance), the time at which they are to be brought to a conclusion shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment.


140
If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order or of the Resolution of the Business Committee is under consideration at seven o'clock on a day on which any Private Business has been set down for consideration at seven o'clock, the Private Business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded.


145
22. Paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) and paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) shall not apply to any Private Business exempted by virtue of paragraph 6 or paragraph 17 of this Order.



23. Nothing in this Order or in the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—


150
(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or


(b) prevent any Business (whether on one or other of the Bills or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bills as are to be taken on that day.


155
24. In this Order "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which one or other of the Bills is put down as the first Government Order of the day, "the Bills" means the National Health Service Contributions Bill and the National Health Service Bill, "the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee on the National Health Service Bills, "the Resolution of the Business Committee" means the Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House, and any reference to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading includes a reference to any Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.


160

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: On a point of order. I wish to seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on the Motion standing in the name of the Leader of the House and other right hon. Members opposite. It is a very long Motion, occupying three-and-a-half pages of the Order Paper, and it covers two quite distinct Bills. It seems to me that, in principle, it is quite wrong that a single timetable Motion should deal with two Measures. Surely this puts the House in a very difficult position. Hon. Members may take different views on these two Measures. Some may wish to support or abstain on one and vote against the other. There is no possibility of their doing so under the Motion introduced by the Government.
I am well aware that there are many precedents where more than one Bill has been grouped with another in the case of a timetable Motion, but I believe that in most of those cases the two Bills were at least very closely associated. For instance, it may be that the Small Landholders (Scotland) Bill and the Land

Values (Scotland) Bill, in 1908, were connected with one another. Similarly, it is quite obvious that the Local Government Bill and the Local Government (Scotland) Bill, in the 1928–29 Session, were closely connected. The same could be said of the Military Training Bill and the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces Bill, in the 1938–39 Session. That cannot be said of the two Bills with which we are concerned.
Perhaps the best argument in favour of what I am saying is this. Whatever our views may be on the merits of the two Measures, the Government have not brought them in together in the past. In fact, they have introduced quite distinct Bills relating to National Health Service charges in some years and relating to contributions in other years.
Finally, here we have two Bills which are not only quite distinct and separate, but one of them is in Standing Committee and the other is being taken on the Floor of the House. Moreover, one of them is a tax Bill and could be


regarded as a finance Bill in the ordinary sense of that word.
In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, may I ask you whether it is right that the House should be forced to consider them together and whether it would not be appropriate to ask the Government to withdraw their Motion and to introduce two separate Motions if they must proceed with this arbitrary procedure?

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: Further to that point of order, May I recall to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, that on 3rd March, 1947, there was a Motion in which two Bills, one the Transport Bill and the other the Town and Country Planning Bill, were grouped together?

Mr. Speaker: I think that there is some difficulty in an invitation addressed to the Chair in this context. No such difficulty attaches to any address made to the Government in this context. I appreciate the force of what the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said. I can only say that I do not think it possible to rule this Motion out of order. If it were, it would not have been placed on the Order Paper.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Further to that point of order. Are we to understand that, under your Ruling Mr. Speaker, any number of Bills of any kind and unrelated in any way can be put together in a timetable Motion? If so, I should like to know whether this is creating a precedent, because it would make a great deal of difference to the rights of hon. Members and all parties in the House. Have we no way of questioning the number of Bills or the relationship between Bills which might be put down in a timetable Motion?

Mr. Speaker: I suppose that it would be possible to table an Amendment to the Motion, abstracting some part of it from it if that case arose. That is not this case. I would not wish, nor think it right to try to rule, on what would be the extremities of this doctrine. If we had something which, in the view of the Chair of the day, would be patently an abuse it would be a different matter I do not think that this Motion has reached that stage.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I direct your attention to that part of the Motion which deals with private Members' time. There are Sessional Orders of the House which provide at what times and on what days there can be Motions by private Members and Private Business. In a timetable Motion concerning other matters, is it in order to interfere with the established practice of the House, laid down in its Standing Orders, regarding its business not connected with either of the Bills included in the Motion?

Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman be good enough to direct my attention to the specific paragraph or paragraphs that he has in. mind?

Mr. Silverman: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is paragraph 6, on page 2288 of the Order Paper, which states:
Any Private Business which has been set down"——

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry. What the hon. Gentleman was talking about was private Members' business. I think that it is fair to say that this is common form nowadays. It is only a regular part of allocation of time Motions.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Further to the point of order raised by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. He has referred to the fact that two Bills were taken separately in Committee—one on the Floor of the House and the other upstairs. There is, however, a further point. No doubt these two Bills are connected in some way, but if they are as closely related as the Leader of the House indicates, so closely related that they can be the subject of one Motion, surely they should have been the subject of one Bill.

Mr. Speaker: With respect to the hon. and learned Gentleman, I do not think that that is a point which arises on the Motion.

Mr. Desmond Donnelly: One point in your answer, Mr. Speaker, to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition puzzled me. Did I understand you to say that the Motion must be in order because otherwise it would not have appeared on the Order Paper? If so, does this mean that everything that appears on the Order Paper in future will always be in order?

Mr. Speaker: No. If it was out of order in a technical sense it would not have been put on the Order Paper, unless I approved its situation there.

3.40 p.m.

Mr. R. A. Butler: I shall shortly be dealing with the point raised by the right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell). Perhaps I might deal with it in the order that I have arranged my few remarks.
The Motion sets out the timetable for the remaining stages of the National Health Service Contributions Bill and the Bill relating to Health Service charges. Before introducing a timetable Motion, a Government have to be satisfied about three things: first, that it is not possible to get the business done by agreement, secondly, that under the proposed timetable there will be adequate time for discussion and that the most efficient use is made of Parliamentary time—we attach great importance to that —and thirdly, that the use of the Guillotine is essential.
As regards the first, we have approached the Opposition with a reasonable offer of time within which we should agree to finish the contributions Bill. They have said, through the Leader of the Opposition, that they are not prepared to discuss any offer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear. That is understood and that disposes of the first point, upon which I shall not dwell any more.
On the second—that the Government have to be satisfied that under the proposed timetable there will be adequate time for discussion and that the most efficient use is made of Parliamentary time—it has never been taken by the most erudite and respectable Parliamentarians that the introduction of such a procedure necessarily militates against the better discussion of a Bill. This is particularly true in the case of a short Bill—and the right hon. Gentleman, in his intervention, indicated that this is a short Bill—in which there is not a mass of Clauses to be gathered up and passed without discussion as the Guillotine falls each time.
Let me examine the procedure suggested, first, for the health contributions Bill, and, secondly for the health service charges Bill. I claim that by our arrangement that three more days should be devoted to the remaining stages of the con-

tributions Bill we can offer hon. Members on both sides of the House an opportunity to put their points and have them answered, and to put them at a time of day when adequate publicity can be given to what they say, if that proves to be desirable, and when the proceedings are conducted with due regard to the importance of the points they put [Interruption.] It is not always the case that the national Press awakes in the early hours of the morning.
During the Committee stages of the Bill, we shall sit from 3.30 to 11.30 on each Committee day. This means eight hours each day. If we add to this the 12 hours taken on the last all-night sitting, we find that the Bill will occupy about 28 hours in Committee, as compared with eight hours which the Opposition thought sufficient for the previous Bill in 1958, which was of similar character, namely, to raise the contribution under the National Health Service.
There was another contributions Bill relating to National Insurance in 1957, which took only five hours in Committee. I do not think that the House or the country can regard it as unfair to allow over three times as much time for this Bill as its predecessor in 1958 and correspondingly more than the equivalent Bill in 1957.
In drawing up this timetable, we realise that the major time may be required for the Schedules—in fact, the right hon. Gentleman said so in the middle of the all-night sitting and all that he says has our immediate attention—particularly the First Schedule, to which he drew attention. In fact, having examined the Order Paper carefully and read all the Amendments and discussed them with my right hon. Friend and with the Financial Secretary, we are quite aware that the major discussion will be on the First Schedule, when a great many points are likely to be put forward. While Clause 2 may well be debated, it may not be regarded as so important as the Schedule. That is why we have drawn the timetable so as to allow the main time for the First Schedule on which the main debates are likely to take place.
The First Schedule relates to the rates, and I believe that the time can be found far the debates on the issues involved without unduly inhibiting the degree of


expression of hon. Members opposite, or, indeed, of hon. Members on this side of the House. The Opposition, if they so desire, will be able to spend precisely as long as they like on Clause 2 and the First Schedule, that is, the whole of the first day, as set out on the Order Paper, up to 11.30 p.m. and the whole of the second day up to 9.30 p.m. I hope that most of this, from the point of view of what is on the Order Paper, will be on the First Schedule, after disposing shortly of Clause 2. The issues of the Second Schedule are not so important, although we have allowed adequate time for them.
It was thought, when drawing up the timetable, that the Opposition and those taking part in the debates could best decide themselves how to spend this time rather than a Business Committee, consisting mainly of the Chairman's Panel. We are, therefore, trying to adapt our procedure to the needs and urgency of the Bill in question, with particular regard to the Amendments which we have studied and which are on the Order Paper.
I do not think that I need go into great detail on the whole length of the Motion. Paragraph 3 allots one day for the Report stage, if any, and Third Reading. Paragraph 4 excludes Motions to alter the order of the Bill. Paragraph 5 provides for the possible contingency of adjournment under Standing Order No. 9. Paragraph 6, to which the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) drew our attention, deals with Private Business when it is set down for one of the allotted days for the Bill. It enables such business to be taken after the proceedings on the Bill for that day and exempts it from Standing Order No. 1 for the period necessary to allow it a maximum of three hours. Private Business, therefore, is not excluded, but this is a contingency which may well not arise and it is put on the Order Paper only because it is common form to make reference to all contingencies that may arise and to make allowances for them.
It may be asked by some hon. Members why there has not been a Business Committee appointed on this Bill, and I draw attention to two precedents-the National Health Service Bill, 1952, and the Licensed Premises in New Towns

Bill, 1952. Here, the main Business Committee was not appointed and I have told the House why we thought that this adequate time is better left to those who will take part in the debates than on this occasion having a Business Committee. The Business Committee was set up after the Bills to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has referred in his intervention as a new device, and it will be noticed that we propose to use the Business Sub-Committee in dealing with the Bill upstairs in Standing Committee.
These are all points that are debatable and I simply wish to bring them out clearly in my opening remarks. I claim, therefore, in drawing attention to the time available for discussing these Amendments, that the second matter on which I have to satisfy the House, namely, that there is time to consider these matters at a suitable hour, is met.
I will deal later with the National Health Service Bill. I should now like to deal with the third point, that a timetable Motion is essential. This depends largely on the attitude of the Opposition and I would use these words:
…This is, I understand, a contentious Measure.… The Opposition have declared, as is their right, that they will fight and oppose this Bill from the beginning to the end… We seek to get this Bill through. That is what it was introduced for.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Butler: These are not my words, although they have been cheered by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. They were used by Mr. Herbert Morrison, now Lord Morrison, as reported in HANSARD, col. 1429, 25th November, 1948, when introducing the Guillotine on the Iron and Steel Bill. It will be seen that, as he said in col. 1438:
There is plenty of precedent and eminently respectable precedent, too, from all quarters for a Motion of this kind.

Mr. S. Silverman: What did the right hon. Gentleman say on that occasion?

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the hon. Member and his hon. Friends will be able to quote, as history has a curious habit in this matter of Parliamentary procedure of repeating itself. Mr. Morrison said on that occasion:
We had better be realistic about the situation."—[OFFicIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1429–38.]


That is precisely what the Government are being on this occasion.
On this occasion, we have an absolutely clearly indication of the attitude of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition, answering me in the early hours of the morning on 23rd February, said that the Opposition
intend to fight every line that we can of the Schedule when we return to it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd February, 1961; Vol. 635. c. 1049.]
His henchman, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) said in a party political broadcast, on 1st March:
Friends, our fight in the House is part of a battle to throw them out. The Labour Opposition will be fighting Tory legislation Clause by Clause and line by line.
The right hon. Gentleman's whole broadcast was devoted to an uncompromising attack on the two Measures which are the subject of the timetable Motion. The right hon. Gentleman added:
At the moment, of course, we cannot defeat the Government by our votes, but we can, and will, go on fighting.
I should like to make it equally clear to the right hon. and, if I may so call him, gallant Gentleman that we, too, intend to go on fighting. We shall go on fighting for what we believe in: that is. the rights of the country and the future of its social services. The Government are, therefore, satisfied that a Guillotine Motion is essential and that it will operate fairly.
I now come to the National Health Service Bill, which has had three sittings in Standing Committee. It has been clear from quotations on the first day in Committee by the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) and the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) that the Opposition, to put it mildly, intend to take a very long time discussing the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East said that the Minister had his constitutional remedies which Parliament, in its wisdom, had ensured were available to him. namely, the Guillotine and the Closure.
I am glad that the hon. and learned Member called them constitutional remedies, because that is exactly what they are. We regard these as constitutional remedies and we propose to give up to 21st March before the Committee

should report. This should give the opportunity of, altogether, eight days in Committee. Furthermore—this is a matter which we cannot decide here today—if the Business Sub-Committee which meets to allocate the business finds it good to advise that there should be a third meeting in the week, there will be an opportunity of extra meetings up to ten days or so in Committee when the Bill will have been discussed.
The procedure following the pattern of the other Bills is set out in the latter part of the Motion. The Leader of the Opposition asked why, if it was a small Bill, we needed to adopt this procedure. The Opposition have tabled nearly 60 Amendments, occupying nearly ten pages of the Notice Paper. So far, in three sittings, two Amendments have been disposed of. The Opposition spent two hours debating that the Committee should sit only one day a week, in the course of which the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), whom I see in his place and who questioned me following my business statement on Thursday, made the following observations, which are perfectly sincere but which make one think. The hon. Member said:
we are … trying to ensure that the Bill shall be delayed for the maximum period of time which it is constitutionally possible for us to delay it.
That was in column 7.
In column 35—the leap from colmun 7 to column 35 shows the extent of the hon. Member's intervention—he said:
There is no reason at all why we should not debate this Bill in Committee right up to the end of the Session and, as I should prefer, even beyond it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 23rd February, 1961; c. 35.]
The hon. Member cannot object to the spirit in which I have read out his statement.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: I meant it.

Mr. Butler: I believe that the hon. Member meant it. I believe that the Opposition meant it. I do not question the sincerity of any of these observations. I do not call that into question.
We must, however, acknowledge the actuality of the situation, as my predecessor from the other side of the House when Leader of the House himself once acknowledged. The Bill might


be delayed, and it is vital for us to get it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Therefore, while no calendar date is written into the Bill, it has to go into effect a week after the Royal Assent. When I am asked "Why?", my answer is why should my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health introduce a Bill unless he wishes to carry it through for the very good patriotic reasons which he has adduced in its support?
The Opposition have made it clear that their purpose is to frustrate the passage of the Bills altogether. If the House has decided, in principle, that this extra money shall be raised in this way for the National Health Service, it must be obvious to hon. Members that the Government could not tolerate undue delay in the implementation of this decision.
So much for something about the two Bills. I would not be doing my duty as Leader of the House if I did not consider whether there were adequate precedents for all this besides quoting one of my predecessors as Leader of the House and the precedent of the Iron and Steel Bill. I have before me—any hon. Member can look them up—the precedents in the period 1945–1951, when the Opposition used the Guillotine in relation to three Bills. I support what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely: there is precedent for one Motion dealing with two Bills, which the Leader of the Opposition did not quote in seeking your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I refer to the case of the Transport Bill, 1947, and the Town and Country Planning Bill, 1947, which were included in one Motion. Then, there was the Iron and Steel Bill, 1949. In the latter case, the Guillotine Motion appeared on the Paper before the Bill was started in Standing Committee, in the former two cases after some attempt had been made to make progress in Standing Committee.
In the present case, we have thought that there is sufficient indication of the attitude of the Opposition and the small progress made hitherto that we should introduce this Motion after an attempt to make progress on the Floor of the House and in Standing Committee. We take precedents from the period of the Socialist Government of 1945 to 1951

or later, because there are respectable precedents also during our time. We find that there are plenty of precedents for the course we are taking.
My final justification for the Motion must be the facts concerning the Bills themselves. The Government intend that the Bill concerning contributions should, if possible, be passed into law by Easter. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health has already announced, the Government intend that the new rates of contribution shall be effective from 3rd July. As the House knows, the preparation, printing and distribution to post offices of a new series of National Insurance stamps is a fairly substantial operation. It takes about three months. It involves printing some 250 million stamps in 31 varieties and their distribution to 25,000 post offices by, at any rate, a week before the new rate of contribution can start. The Bill relating to charges is wanted as soon as it can reasonably pass through Standing Committee and return to the House.
I move this Motion because these Bills take their place in an important Government programme. In my opinion, and in that of my colleagues, the Motion will make discussion on the Bills fairer, clearer and better than under any alternative procedure that we are likely to see. I take my full responsibility, as Leader of the House, in moving the Motion. I do it in the hope that the Bills may be properly discussed, I do it according to respectable precedent and I do it in the belief that it will be accepted by the House.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Before the right hn. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him a question? He apparently thinks that he has covered every aspect of the Motion. Will he tell the House why he has mixed up Clause 2 with the new Clauses and the First Schedule? Why has he not given separate time for each of these separate items? Would that not be reasonable?

Mr. Butler: I mentioned in my speech that there are various methods of organising this. It was not thought by us that Clause 2 was likely to present the most controversial debate, or would necessarily take up a great deal of time. It was thought by us that the controversial debates would be on the many positive


Amendments to the First Schedule which need discussion. New Clauses, if any, are included and according to present signs they are not likely to take up any time. Therefore, the whole of the time is to be allotted to debate on the First Schedule relating to a series of different types of people in relation to rates, and for that the best part of two Parliamentary days have been allotted.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I concede that there may be no new Clauses and that, therefore, it might be reasonable to associate Clause 2 with the new Clauses, if any, but would it not be more reasonable to allocate a separate period of time for the First Schedule, which is of cardinal importance, as the right hon. Gentleman admitted, to that Bill? In my submission, it would be reasonable to give a separate period of time for the First Schedule.

Mr. Butler: I explained in my speech that Guillotines in the past have operated—and some hon. Members may not have seen them operate—on a good many Clauses. The Guillotine has sometimes fallen so that Clauses were not discussed at all. On this occasion we are giving a long time primarily for one main Schedule so that those hon. Members participating in the debate can make the best use of the time. There will be no falling of the Guillotine to cut off any portion of the time allotted to this matter under this arrangement, which is meant to be a fair system.

4.1 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: I beg to move, in line 1, to leave out from "That" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
this House declines to assent to the arbitary curtailment of debate upon two measures which vitally affect the welfare of the nation".
It is common form, in debates on timetable Motions, for the Government to remind the Opposition of what they did when they were the Government, and for the Opposition to remind the Government of what they said when they were in opposition. The Leader of the House has given us one or two illustrations of this kind, but let me say straight away that it is no part of my case this afternoon that the Guillotine is never justified in our proceedings.
There are circumstances, in my view, when the Government are entitled to

introduce timetable Motions of this character; but they are all, from their very nature, grave infringements of the rights of Members, and particularly of the rights of the minority. The Guillotine Motion is worse than a Closure Motion. It is worse than a Closure Motion, because it is a series of prearranged Closure Motions covering the whole debate, or the whole of the remaining debate, on a Bill.
I cannot accept for one moment that the right hon. Gentleman, in his argument in favour of this Motion, put in any way the fundamental points. I cannot accept that it is justifiable to introduce a Motion of this kind merely because the Opposition have declared that they intend to oppose a Bill. This is really a most monstrous notion, that every time we decide that we dislike something right hon. Gentlemen opposite do, and we say so, and we argue in debate, and we do our best, as we are entitled, to delay a Bill, despite the fact they have a majority of 100 against us—that every time this happens, on the right hon. Gentleman's argument, the Government are entitled to introduce a Guillotine Motion. That is really ridiculous, and it is quite contrary to the previous statements which have been made on this particular subject.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Before today?

Mr. Gaitskell: I agree, I repeat, that there are circumstances when a Guillotine Motion is legitimate, but only when it is used as a last resort on a very urgent, very necessary Bill which cannot otherwise be passed in a reasonable time and where failure to do so would involve serious consequences to the nation. It is our contention that no such case can conceivably be made out in respect of these two miserable little Bills which form the subject of the Motion.
Let us consider for a moment, first, the question of urgency. What is the urgency in this matter? No date of coming into force is specified in the Bills. For the National Health Service Contributions Bill the Treasury fixes an appointed day. So the Government are in no way tied down to having to get it through by any particular day or week or even month. As for the National Health Service Bill, all that is provided


is that it shall come into force seven days after it is passed. So there is certainly no technical requirement whatever about urgency. It is true, of course, that the Government have already brought into force the higher prescription charges—and, believe me, they will be hearing all about it from the public in the days and weeks to come.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Not one letter.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Member can wait. He will get plenty of letters, if our experience is any guide, because, believe me, going round the country during the last two weekends we have encountered a great deal of feeling about this matter.
How can it possibly be claimed that either the nation or, indeed, the Government would be adversely affected if these Bills were passed, not at the end of March, as is the desire of the Government, but, say, at the end of April or even at the end of May? It cannot possibly be said there is any degree of urgency here whatever.
Of course, the Government will, no doubt, say—or certainly it will be in their mind—that they wish to get the Bill through before the Budget and before the Finance Bill comes before the House; but it is part of our case against—particularly—the Contributions Bill, but also against the other Bill as well, that these should never have been introduced, if they were introduced at all, except at the time of the Budget, for even the Chancellor of the Exchequer admits that the contribution to the Health Service is not an insurance payment: it is, of course—he himself admitted it—a poll tax.
It is a tax Measure, and as a tax Measure it should be considered, if considered at all, when taxation as a whole is being considered, so that the House and the country can compare and contrast what is being done in the way of imposing this tax on the workers and employers of the country in comparison with what is done in other directions.
We have every reason for suspicions, when the Government deliberately introduced that Bill well in advance of the Budget, that they are very anxious to

get it out of the way before the Budget comes along, because if we are to judge by precedents, it is typical of their mentality that they would impose by stealth a higher tax on the workers, and then give away openly a large amount of public money to wealthier people.
The second question we have to consider is whether these Bills could be passed without a Guillotine Motion. Here, I am bound to say that I think length is very relevant, for though these Bills are of the greatest importance nobody can say that they are long and complicated Bills. They are, indeed, extremely short. One of them consists of two Clauses and two Schedules, and one Clause, Clause 1, the main Clause, has already been passed in Committee of the whole House; and the other of five Clauses, of which three are more or less formal. From the way the Government are talking, and judged by the precedents for Guillotine Motions, one would assume that these were long Bills of 20. 30 or 40 Clauses.
But not a bit of it. They are tiny little Bills, and how the Government can really claim that they would not have been able to get these Bills through passes my understanding. It certainly seems to be—I suppose one may say—something of a tribute to the Opposition. It is a tribute which we would gladly be without if we could avoid this arbitrary curtailment of debate.
Moreover, the Bills have made substantial progress. There have been no complaints from either the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary or the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in their interventions during our debates, that we were going unduly slowly. They seemed to be perfectly happy. The Leader of the House, at the end of our last debate on Clause 1, said that we had got Clause 1 and that that was satisfactory. He did not say that it had been very slow in coming or that we had been obstructing. He said nothing of the kind. Indeed, it would be very hard for the Government to argue seriously that there have been obstructions by the Opposition on these matters.
It is true that on the National Health Service Contributions Bill we have had a very short debate arbitrarily curtailed on the Ways and Means Resolution, on that


famous occasion when the Chief Whip ventured to give us his views with such disastrous consequences for the Government, on that night when the Leader of the House preferred to stand behind Mr. Speaker's Chair rather than come into the House. We had on that evening about two hours of debate. It is true that we had an all-night sitting on Second Reading, but what is wrong with that? This is a Bill of great importance, affecting the lives and living standards of the whole population, and it is right and proper that the House of Commons should debate a Measure of this kind at length.
The fact that we sat up all night is not, of course, the direct responsibility of the Opposition. We were prepared to do so if required. It is simply that the Government chose not to adjourn the debate. We had one other debate in Committee, which, I admit, took the greater part of the night, and the Leader of the House was satisfied to get Clause 1. One cannot speak as if getting Clause 1 meant little progress. It is a great deal of progress. It is the heart of the Bill. It is the main thing. Everybody knows that when we have a short Bill of this kind, and even sometimes when there is a long Bill, it often takes some time before we pass Clause 1.
The expression "filibustering" is sometimes used in connection with an all-night sitting or attempts on the part of the Opposition to delay Government legislation. But filibustering in the American sense of reading out irrelevant passages from literature plays no part in our proceedings. On the contrary, throughout the two nights we had serious and effective speeches from this side of the House. I only wish that we had had them from hon. Members opposite, but that is not our fault. It is simply because they are gagged by the Patronage Secretary, and precious little good it did him or them for that matter. But I recall the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) speaking at five o'clock in the morning after the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I venture to say that that was one of the most effective and able speeches I have heard in the House. So it was on the first night, and so on the second occasion.
The Leader of the House has argued that he has to get the Bill through.

Let us not forget that, after all, this is a tax Bill and I would remind the House that it is now nearly thirty years since a tax Bill was guillotined. This is a very serious matter. There was such a Guillotine admittedly in 1932 on the Import Duties Bill, but at least one could say at that time that the country was still involved in a very grave economic crisis. I do not know whether the Leader of the House is claiming that the economic situation is so critical today that the Government must get this Bill through with a timetable.
Let us look at what is involved. The National Health Service Bill has had only three sittings in Committee. It is true that a large number of Amendments have been put down. There is nothing unusual in that. It is common form. The Leader of the House knows perfectly well that, unfortunately, it is only too likely that not all the Amendments will be selected. The Chairman has power to select and he uses that power. The fact that we are still on Clause I is again completely irrelevant since it is certainly one of the only two vital Clauses.
Nor can we overlook the fact that the Bill contains enabling powers for the Government. This is not merely something that is past and done with when it has passed through the House of Commons and the other place and has received the Royal Assent. It gives the Government power to vary charges at any time. This is something that the House should not allow to go through without very serious debate. I suppose that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends may feel that there is something derogatory about the all-night sittings which they have endured recently. They endured them because the Government insisted on rushing this business through.
We on this side of the House have no objection. We are prepared to stay. I do not accept the argument that there is anything derogatory to the House of Commons in having all-night sittings. It is absolute nonsense to suggest it. On the contrary, it is a well-established tradition of the House that from time to time we have to sit late. As for our reputation in the country, I believe that this does far more good than harm. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I see that hon. Members question that. I find the


country interested in parliamentary proceedings as a result of the fact that we have stayed up late in the last few weeks.
What people dislike about the House of Commons is when we have a dull time, when there is nothing to report and we seem to be doing nothing. But when we argue fiercely, as we do in our party system, with live debate and with real argument, it does nothing but good in the country. I know that hon. Members opposite do not like such a thing. They want to keep everything as quiet as possible. They want to be able to stay away as long as possible. They want to avoid all-night sittings so that they can go off to their other jobs in the morning. It is different on this side of the House.
The next question is whether the Bills are necessary. Emphatically, in our opinion, they are not necessary. In our opinion, there is no case whatever, indeed quite the contrary, for taking either Bill before the Budget. If the Government are really arguing that it is necessary to have these Bills to stop the appalling economic situation into which they have plunged the country, it is difficult to understand how the saving of £1¾ million by means of the Bill which imposes new charges will help them. It is even suggested in some of the newspapers that in their desperate straits the Government may have to drop the Road Safety Bill to get these Bills through. What a sense of priority to drop the Road Safety Bill to get passed a Bill imposing charges on the Health Service!
Another question that must be asked is whether the Government have any mandate for the Bill. There is certainly no mention of it in their General Election manifesto and not even a word about it in the Queen's Speech. In view of what the Leader of the House says, and because it is right that we should draw a distinction and argue for what we have done in the past, I should like to contrast with these Bills the three Bills on which we on this side of the House, when we were in power, introduced a time-table Motion. First, all those Bills were long Bills. We had for all of them a clear electoral mandate; and we had every reason to expect prolonged obstruction by the then Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman queried whether it was really justifiable for us to introduce a Guillotine Motion on the Iron and Steel Bill. I remember that occasion very well, and I remember why that decision was taken. It was taken because the Opposition so obstructed another Bill which was then going through—the Gas Bill, of which I happened to be in charge—that they forced the Standing Committee to have a 50-hour sitting. Indeed, so considerate were they of the reputation of the House of Commons at that time that they finally produced the following situation.
According to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Diamond), who was unfortunate enough to be Chairman of the Committee at that time, there was a moment in the early hours—about 5 a.m., I think—during the second night, when my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice) was addressing the Committee in his usual lucid manner, explaining exactly why we could not accept some frivolous Amendment tabled by the Opposition, when my hon. Friend found himself nodding—going off to sleep—and he woke and observed my right hon. and learned Friend addressing an entirely sleeping Committee. This contrasts very ill with these ideas of looking after the reputation of the House of Commons.
Moreover, those Bills were all badly needed and very necessary. If one has any doubts about that, one has only to consider the disastrous consequences which have fallen upon us since they were repealed or amended by the Tory Government. The rise in land values resulting directly from the repeal of Part II of the Town and Country Planning Act, the uncontrollable sprawl all over the countryside; the shortage of steel and, indeed, the enormous capital gains made by private individuals in steel shares; the wrecking of the Transport Commission—all those things which have happened since then show only too clearly how justified we were in insisting at that time that the Bills should go through.
The real reasons why the Government have introduced this Motion are quite different. We can get some guidance by considering the previous Bills which they have guillotined. It is an interesting fact


that they seem always to introduce the guillotine when they are either attacking the Welfare State or transferring money from the State or from the poor to the rich. These guillotined Bills really make a remarkable list. First, there was the earlier National Health Service Bill. Then we had the Licensed Premises (New Towns) Bill—what I prefer to call the "Brewers' Benefit" Bill. Then we had the Rent Act—the "Landlords' Loot" Bill. Then we had the Transport Act—the "Road Hauliers' Racket" Bill. Then we had commercial television, the biggest plum of all—the private television take-over bid.
The truth, of course, is that hon. Members opposite do not like the publicity given by late sittings, because there are always headlines in the newspapers next morning about what they are trying to do in the House, and they want to get this over especially before the Budget for the reasons which I have given. They are unable to stay up all night or unwilling to stay up all night.
Most important of all, I believe that the real motive behind the Motion is an attempt on the part of the Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary to restore their drooping prestige among their hon. Friends. For everybody knows what a fool the Chief Patronage Secretary has made of himself, and everybody knows the kind of strain that is imposed on their relations with their hon. Friends when they are subjected to the kind of attack that we have been making upon them. Of course, especially with the members of the Suez Group, a show of force of this kind will endear the right hon. Gentleman to his hon. Friends below the Gangway. If they cannot have gunboats abroad, they will have guillotines at home.
I am sorry that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) is not here this afternoon, because I am sure that he would have agreed entirely with what I have just been saying. His mutterings and his threats across the Floor of the House have been very evident to us recently, and, obviously, he has had his way with the Leader of the House. I must quote to the House the record of the noble Lord in this matter. In 1948, when the Labour Government introduced a time-

table Motion, the noble Lord spoke of this as being the
ugly thrust of dictatorship into our British Parliamentary system …
With his customary courtesy, he went on to say:
Consequently, their hand"—
He meant the hand of the Labour Government—
on public events is capricious in timing and brutal in application. They are gorillas plunging about in the garden of English democracy."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1493–4.]
Of course, when it came to 1954 the noble Lord was in a different mood altogether. He said:
Of course, the very word portrays the knife which is supposed to come down upon legislation, and the public outside is wont, from the use of that word, to get the idea of a violent affront to Parliamentary proceedings. But if we think of it in relation to a timetable, it becomes more normal. A timetable, so far from being revolutionary, is a thing of habit.
The noble Lord then went on to say—I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to this the noble Lord was defending the imposition of a Guillotine in those circumstances when the Government had a small majority, about 20, I think—
There is no purpose in a Guillotine when there is a substantial majority of 100 or more.…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 1046–9.]
The fact is that none of the reasons advanced by the right hon. Gentleman can possibly be accepted as valid. Honestly, I have never known a Guillotine less justified by any reasonable argument. The truth is that this Motion is inspired by fear, by idleness, by hurt pride and by vanity. I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should have so tarnished his reputation as to support it, and I ask the House to reject the Motion and support the Amendment.

4.28 p.m.

Sir Robert Grimston: I venture to address the House on this Motion because I have been a Member of Parliament for about thirty years and have experienced many Guillotine Motion debates. These debates take a common form.
With respect to my right hon. Friend and to the Leader of the Opposition, I would say that the debate so far as it


has gone at present has more or less followed common form. My right hon. Friend recited the list of precedents—what our opponents did when they were in office—and I propose to say a little more about that later. The Leader of the Opposition has been engaged in reviving his drooping prestige by showing a commendable amount of indignation, but he has really said nothing new. Having heard this debate so far, there still goes through my mind, as on previous occasions, the lines from "The Jackdaw of Rheims" so far as the Opposition are concerned:
Never was heard such a terrible curse! But what gave rise To no little surprise, Nobody seem'd one penny the worse!
I want to look, for a few moments, at the timetable from the point of view of the functioning of our Parliamentary democracy and briefly to mention a little of the history of the matter. The House will agree that it is necessary to strike a fair balance in order to ensure the rights of the Opposition to be heard and to influence policy, but what is even more important is the carrying on of the business of the government of the country. There is no doubt that if an elected Government could be completely frustrated, Parliamentary democracy would break down, and that would be the road to dictatorship.
There was a time when debate in the House was completely unrestricted. Indeed, the first time the Closure was moved, it was done not under a Standing Order, but by one of our previous Speakers who got up and said, "I am going to put the Question", having got "fed up" with the proceedings, and he did so. Now, of course, the Closure is part of our procedure.
If hon. Members will think for a moment, they will recall that at ten o'clock, unless Standing Order No. 1 is suspended, it has become the normal practice for the Closure to be accepted, if it has to be moved, even though many Members may be shut out of the debate. Every day we accept a certain restriction on debate in the interests of the government of the country being carried on and of the business of the Government being effectively pursued.

Mr. S. Silverman: Who has objected to that?

Sir R. Grimston: I am glad to hear that the hon. Member does not object to it.
Later, to prevent the Irish Members, who held the balance, from completely frustrating proceedings, the system of the Guillotine was introduced, and has been used by Governments of all complexions since then. It is more recently that we have introduced another restriction—that on Prayers. Nowadays, the Question on a Prayer must be put from the Chair at 11.30 p.m. That is a comparatively recent innovation, introduced when we on this side of the House were in opposition, and were keeping the House up night after night on such Motions. The matter was considered by an all-party committee, and it was decided, in the interests of the House, that that particular Guillotine should be introduced.
The use of the Guillotine, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House pointed out, has quite a respectable history. Every Government have used it from time to time, and every Opposition have opposed it vehemently. But it is no exaggeration to say that without its use from time to time we could not carry on Parliamentary democracy. Let us face the fact that a bunch of obstructionists could hold up practically the whole of the government of the country.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has made the usual attack today, and has referred to one or two previous debates. I propose to refer to what the late Mr. Arthur Greenwood said, in introducing a timetable Motion for the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill in 1947. It was a passage which the right hon. Gentleman conveniently forgot. Mr. Greenwood said:
I am saying that the progress on these two Bills is too slow. Therefore, we propose to apply the new procedure."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 3rd March. 1947; Vol. 434, c. 67.]
The new procedure was, for the first time, to introduce a Guillotine to Standing Committee proceedings. It was introduced as a result of the Report of a Select Committee in 1945. There we have the precedent of Mr. Greenwood not only introducing a Motion which covered two very different Bills but, for the first time, introducing the system whereby the Guillotine was imposed in Standing Committee.
In 1948, we had a timetable Motion for the Iron and Steel Bill, to which the right hon. Gentleman has also referred. Lord Morrison of Lambeth—then Mr. Herbert Morrison—referred to the fact that there had been obstruction upstairs on the Gas Bill, of which the right hon. Gentleman the present Leader of the Opposition was in charge. A great many points of order were raised by the then Opposition as to whether Mr. Morrison had any right to talk about obstruction. It is interesting to read what he said about obstruction.
They"—
the then Opposition—
seem to get into their heads the idea that if anybody charges them with obstruction, he is using unparliamentary terms. It is laid down in Erskine May with the greatest firmness that the charge of obstruction is a perfectly fair Parliamentary charge. I make the charge, and I stick to it, that there was obstruction. [OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c. 1434.]
On this occasion, I find myself in company with Mr. Morrison. I make the charge that the Opposition are obstructing, and I stick to that charge. That is the main reason for the production of this Motion. I have been looking up the sittings of the Standing Committee on the National Health Service Bill. I have myself, as a member of the Chairmen's Panel, presided over many Standing Committees, and I have never known practically a whole morning to be devoted to discussing whether a Committee should sit on what are the two normal days for sitting. If that is not obstruction, I do not know what is.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman is charging the Standing Committee on that Bill with obstruction, can he explain why the Government never once even sought to apply the Closure to any of the debates in the three sittings which the Committee has had?

Sir R. Grimston: I charge the Opposition with obstruction, and say that the Minister in charge of the Bill was extraordinarily patient in not applying the Closure. I have had some experience in this House, and have presided over many Standing Committees. Never have I known any time taken up at all on the Motion that the Committee should sit on the normal days, Tuesdays and Thursdays, though there might be debate

on a Motion that the Committee should sit on Wednesdays as well. I accuse the Opposition of obstruction.

Mr. S. Silverman: Mr. S. Silverman rose——

Sir R. Grimston: I am not giving way to the hon. Member. He always interrupts everybody, so he can just "pipe down".
The Leader of the Opposition spoke of the effect of this Motion on the country at large. The last time that a timetable was imposed was in 1957, on the Rent Act, to which the right hon. Gentleman has also referred. There was a terrific hullabaloo on behalf of the Opposition, which showed great indignation—about the same as today. The hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) moved an Amendment to the Motion which I shall quote in part to the House. It was that
this House declines to accept a Motion which seeks to stifle discussion on proposals which vitally and directly affect many millions of Her Majesty's subjects …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1957; Vol. 564, c. 48.]
What did the country think of that? It will not have escaped the notice of hon. Members that, within little more than a year after that, we were returned by the country with a greatly increased majority.
I suggest that my right hon. and hon. Friends need not fear the hullabaloo which will go on about this timetable Motion and the Bills, and that we have every right to bring in and to support the Motion. It strikes a fair balance between the rights of the Opposition, on the one hand, and the carrying on of essential Government business, on the other, and I commend it to my right hon. and hon. Friends. Further, I hazard the guess that in their heart of hearts quite a few hon. Members opposite are not unrelieved that this Motion has been tabled.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: Apart from any other consideration. I object to the timetable Motion on the ground that it is offensive to those of us who have been sitting on the Committee dealing with the National Health Service Bill. According to the proceedings of that Committee, which are available to any hon. Member to peruse, there has been no obstruction of any


kind. [HON. MEMBERS: Nonsense."] To those hon. Members who said, "Nonsense", I would point out that there is not one Government member of that Committee present in the House while we are discussing the Guillotine Motion, apart from those on the Ministerial Bench.

Sir Hugh Linstead: Sir Hugh Linstead (Putney) rose——

Mr. Wilkins: I notice that the hon. Member has just arrived.

Sir H. Linstead: I have been here throughout Questions and throughout the whole of the opening of the debate.

Mr. Wilkins: I withdraw the words "not one" and substitute "only one". Only one member of the Government benches in Committee upstairs has deigned to come to the House on an occasion when we are discussing the time which is to be alloted to us in order carefully to scrutinise the provisions of this very important National Health Service Bill.
Listening to some of the reasons given both by the Leader of the House and by the right hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), I wondered who has been advising them. The truth is to be found in two facts. First, it is obvious to anyone who is a member of the Committee that our proceedings have been interfering with the private interests of some hon. Members and that they are desperately anxious to get away from the Committee altogether, or to complete the proceedings of the Committee, which are apparently interfering with either their professional or their business interests. That has been made clear to some of us sitting on the Committee by hon. Members who ask whether we will accommodate them with pairs in order that they may get away. As they are not accommodated with pairs, they find themselves in difficulty.
The second reason is the obvious reason which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition stated this afternoon. This is a budgetary Measure. It is true to form with all that has happened in the last five or six years, by which the unpalatable parts of the Financial Statement, which ought to be incorporated in the Budget, are forced upon the country two or three months before the Budget. In this way the

Budget is made to look a little more palatable to our people than it otherwise would. That is why we have this panic Motion this afternoon.
What are the facts? Standing Committee A, which is charged with carefully examining the National Health Service Bill upstairs, has been sitting for seven and-a-half hours. The interest of those on the Government benches is shown by HANSARD. The Members on the Government benches, who, according to the Leader of the House, should have an adequate opportunity to discuss these Measures, have spoken what amounts to 77 lines of HANSARD in seven-and-a-half hours.

Sir Spencer Summers: Will the hon. Member also inform us that one-third of the seven-and-a-half hours in Committee was taken up in debating not the merits of the Bill, but whether the Committee should sit in the afternoon?

Mr. Wilkins: The first morning sitting was spent debating whether it was necessary for us to sit twice a week to discuss the Bill, or whether once a week would be adequate. We pleaded with the Minister of Health to agree to one-day sitting on a Wednesday, as distinct from a Tuesday or a Thursday, to permit the villain of the piece, the Prime Minister, who has put the Minister of Health in office as a "stooge" to carry this Bill through, to be present at our meetings. That was the reason for our suggestion that we ought to sit on one day a week.
Apart from those on the Ministerial bench—and they have not said very much—Members on the Government benches of that Committee have spoken 77 lines, or about 539 words, most of which have been encompassed within points of order. This is the contribution which Government Members have made to the deliberations on a Bill which will have a great impact upon the economic circumstances of our people. Although they have shown such an utter lack of interest, the Government nevertheless come here, with audacity, to try to curtail the time available to those members of the Committee who are willing to give consideration to an examination of the Bill. It does not make sense.
But it does not end there. Within the very first hour of the Committee meeting


on the first day, I found it incumbent upon me to direct the Chairman's attention to the fact that Government members of the Committee were showing no interest whatever in our proceedings and were conducting their correspondence in the Committee. The Chairman gave a Ruling that it was improper to do so.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford) rose——

Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Member has only just arrived and he has not heard what has gone before.

Mr. Lewis: I was in the Chamber, but had to go out. I was in Committee at the time which the hon. Member has mentioned. The House ought to know that it was pointed out that hon. Members opposite were making an assumption which they had no right to make—an assumption that we were doing our correspondence. In fact, we were making notes on the speeches which hon. Members opposite were making.

Mr. Wilkins: The hon. Member is thinking of another occasion, on the third sitting of the Committee, when, again, I had to direct the Chairman's attention to probably the most important factor of all in this matter of our sittings—that, had it not been for members of the Opposition, the Committee would have had to cease its deliberations. For about one and a quarter hours there would not have been a quorum if, not all, but some members of the Opposition had left the Committee, and for a substantial part of one hour only four Government back benchers were present.
Rather than obstructing the proceedings of the Committee, we have been enabling the Government to carry on with the Committee's deliberations. We have been responsible for sustaining a quorum, which is normally a responsibility of the Government. We discussed whether we should accept that responsibility, and we decided that the Bill was so important that someone had to stay in the Committee and pay some attention to the Bill and try to amend it so that it could be made more acceptable.
I do not know whether the Motion will appeal to the House in general. Generally speaking, hon. Members dislike Guillotine Motions. I certainly do,

and I do not agree that the precedents quoted by the Leader of the House in any way justified the action which he has proposed that the House should take. How can he claim that, after three sittings on the Bill in which, as my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) pointed out, there was not even a question of a Closure, there should be a Guillotine Motion in order to ensure that Government business should go through?
I seem to have made a false reckoning. The Leader of the House will recall that he said that even by the terms of the Motion we should have eight sittings of the Committee available to us. He went on to say that, in addition to that, we could probably have a third sitting in each week. However, according to my diary, if discussions in Committee on the Bill are to end by 21st March, we shall have only five sittings left to us and not the eight which the right hon. Gentleman suggested. The right hon. Gentleman may have intended to say that if we were prepared to sit on Wednesdays we could then have eight mornings to discuss the Bill.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will pay some heed to our appeals to him. We do not believe that the Bill is as urgent as has been suggested. Apart from fiscal and financial considerations, the Bill could well be left until at least after the Easter Recess, and we think that there would be plenty of time even if it went right up to the Summer Recess. This is a three-Clause Bill with one Schedule, and with only two of its Clauses operative. I doubt whether there can be a precedent for a Guillotine Motion on so short a Bill, and I hope that the Leader of the House will listen to our appeals and withdraw the Motion.

4.55 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: The Leader of the Opposition was particularly careful to make it clear that he did not oppose Guillotine Motions as a matter of principle. It is as well that he did that, not least because he appears to have been a Member of a Select Committee whose recommendations we debated in 1947 and which dealt with the use of this sort of procedure.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Gentleman has probably overlooked the fact that, although I was originally a member of that Committee, I resigned from it on becoming a Minister and was not responsible for its conclusions.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I appreciate that, but the right hon. Gentleman will agree that his name appears at the beginning of that Committee's Report and that he was a member of it when it first sat. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will want unduly to diverge from the opinions of Lord Morrison of Lambeth. The right hon. Gentleman must be careful not to take the Lambeth Walk to Wardour Street, or we shall soon have an "X" certificate given to our debate.
The right hon. Gentleman has destroyed his own argument by his reference to the fact that he does not oppose Guillotine Motions in principle. He has endeavoured to make this Motion offensive on the ground that there is no need for it and no need for Bills of this kind. But he seems undecided about whether this is a wretched Bill or a terribly important Bill. At one moment he referred to Bills of this kind as miserable little Bills, and then at the next he said that this was a matter which would affect all the community and our standard of living and that it was taxation on the whole population. Sooner or later, he must make up his mind whether it is a miserable little Bill, for which we should not bother to have a Guillotine Motion, or a Bill that is so important that it adversely affects all taxpayers and our standard of living. He tried to use both arguments and they are self-destroying. The right hon. Gentleman should have made a better case than that.
The right hon. Gentleman's argument about taxation raises a far bigger issue, because the right hon. Gentleman himself knows that he visualised a revenue of about £12 million as the result of a charge for spectacles. I think that he is the man who imposed a maximum of £400 million on the Health Service when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Mr. Gaitskell: Mr. Gaitskell indicated dissent.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Yes, he is. He said that he did not wish the Exchequer contribution to the Health Service to rise

above £400 million. It is nearly £900 million now and it will be £1,000 million in a year or two. The right hon. Gentleman cannot argue that when he is Chancellor he is right to put a lid on, but that another Chancellor has no right to do so.

Mr. Gaitskell: The hon. Gentleman should do his homework a little better. I was not Chancellor of the Exchequer when the £400 million so-called ceiling was imposed. It was imposed by Sir Stafford Cripps, my predecessor. However, it is quite true—and I may as well deal with this as the hon. Gentleman has raised the issue—that when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer during the Korean War when defence expenditure was increased by £300 million——

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: Before the Korean War.

Mr. Gaitskell: It is not the business of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) to question whether I am in order. That is a matter for you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I did not say a word about order.

Mr. Gaitskell: In 1951, when I was Chancellor of the Exchequer and during the Korean War when defence expenditure had to be increased by at least £300 million, with the support of hon. Members opposite, and when taxation, both Income Tax and Surtax, had to be increased, for a temporary period of three years a small charge for teeth and spectacles was introduced. Those are the facts.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: There is nothing inconsistent in what I said and what the right hon. Gentleman said. I am extremely grateful to him for underlining and under-scoring what I have said about his own views on these matters. The moment he accepts the argument that an increase of any sort in the Health Service charge is a tax he destroys the argument which his own party has made over and over again when it refuses to accept that the whole of the social welfare contribution is a tax. I have always believed it was. The right hon. Gentleman has now conceded the point in regard to the Health Service charges.

Mr. Gaitskell: The contribution is a tax.

Mr. E. G. Willis: The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) is very confused.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The fact remains that we are discussing a matter of taxation. A person who retires today at the age of 65, with a wife who is aged 60, will have contributed the equivalent of 9s. a week for the rest of his life, but he will get 92s. 6d., by way of pension. The argument that it is taxation is not a case for imposing this charge in the Budget; it is much better that a Chancellor should know what other Departments will demand of him or impose by way of compulsory contributions before the Budget rather than become involved in the question himself at the time of the Budget. In this connection I cannot help being reminded of an eloquent passage from the General Epistle of Jude. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has read it. The House will see its relevance in a moment. It begins
These are spots in your feasts of charity, when they feast with you, feeding themselves without fear: clouds they are without water, carried about of winds; trees whose fruit withereth without fruit, twice dead, plucked up by the roots;
Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.
And Enoch also, the seventh from Adam, prophesied of these, saying, Behold, the Lord cometh with ten thousand of his saints,
To execute judgment upon all, and to convince all that are ungodly among them of all their ungodly deeds which they have ungodly committed and of all their hard speeches which ungodly sinners have spoken against him.
These are murmerers, complainers, walking after their own lusts; and their mouth speaketh great swelling words, having men's persons in admiration because of advantage.
The phrase "clouds without water" is a good description of the right hon. Gentleman. As my right hon. Friend said, he is the person who has talked about fighting again. He must take care about that. The hon. Member for Coventry, East (Mr. Crossman) who is now chairman of the Labour Party, told the right hon. Gentleman many years ago that in the Labour Party the minorities unfortunately had to bow to the majority. Surely that is precisely what we are faced with here. The minority must bow to the majority.

Mr. Charles Pannell: Incomprehensible gibberish.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: With so many hon. Members sitting opposite it is difficult to know which one is addressing me. If anybody wants to say anything, he should get up and say it.

Mr. Pannell: I am saying that the hon. Member's speech has reached that stage of incomprehensibility at this time in the afternoon that I should not have expected of a speech from an hon. Member opposite before nine o'clock tonight.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: It is obvious that the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) has not studied the General Epistle of Jude. I am sorry that he has not. He would find a lot in it.
As I was saying, the chairman of the Labour Party warned the right hon. Gentleman many years ago—and he has repeated the warning several times since—that the minority takes unkindly to the majority's opinion being thrust upon it, and it is obvious that the minority in the House is taking unkindly to what the majority is trying to thrust upon it now. But it is recognised that we have to take the rough with the smooth in these matters. Much has been said about the effect of the Guillotine upon people outside the House. I would ask what is the effect upon them when we have all-night sittings. My view is that the average person who thinks for two minutes about this says to himself, "If Parliament cannot manage its affairs better than this it is not fit to run the country." I have heard that said over and over again.
Those Members who have been in the House for a number of years realise that there are some forms of our procedure which are as incomprehensible to the public as my remarks are to the hon. Member for Leeds, West. Nevertheless, they are vital safeguards to the freedom of our country, and there are worse ways of proceeding than the ways we adopt to prevent the Government from getting their business. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman to the extent that I am not against Guillotines in principle. I also agree that we must be guarded as to their use. But there are times when the opportunities for unrestricted debate are grossly abused.
Of the right hon. Gentleman's two points of view about the two Bills which are affected, I plump for his argument that they are trivial ones. They merely alter the effect of an imposition which is already in existence, and they are nothing like as important as the Measures which we were debating when the Opposition were in power, when we tried to speak throughout the night. The party opposite were then altering our whole Constitution. The Bills we were concerned with then were nationalisation Bills, and there was a case for fighting them line by line and word by word. There is no such case for fighting these Bills. The Leader of the Opposition referred to them as miserable little Bills.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: Does the hon. Member agree that the two days and nights spent in continuous sitting in Committee on the Gas Bill did not constitute a gross abuse of the privileges of the House? Before he answers that question, will he remember that one of these Bills imposes a poll tax upon the whole of our working population?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I agree that it imposes a tax, but it is a very small one in relation to the total amount of taxation, and we know that the people whom we wish to protect against its effect are already being protected in respect of the present prescription charges and will in fact continue to be so protected against the increased charges. It is a matter of opinion whether we should protect more people, but as a question of constitutional importance these Bills are nothing like so vital as was the question whether a certain industry should be nationalised. We must keep a sense of proportion about the use of all-night sittings and obstructionism.

Mr. Hayman: Does not the hon. Member agree that since the gas industry has been nationalised it has been vastly improved, as compared with its bankrupt condition formerly?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): We are straying rather far from the terms of the Motion.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. While your predecessor was in the Chair,

Mr. Deputy-Speaker, the opening speakers from both Front Benches referred to the Gas Bill and all the questions which flowed from it. It will be most unfortunate if, the tone of the debate having been set by the Front Benches, the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) or any hon. Member on this side of the House is not to be allowed to follow up. Mr. Speaker has said that these matters are in order, and I do not think that it falls to other occupants of the Chair to rule them out of order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not think that I have said anything to narrow the scope of the debate.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am sorry if I have strayed too widely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, but an incentive was provided by the earlier remarks of the Leader of the Opposition and those of the hon. Member for Leeds, West. If we have gone unduly wide, I hope to bring the debate back to a narrower front. I think that I have made my point. Sometimes big constitutional issues are at stake, when it may be the duty of the Opposition to fight every line for as long as they can, but on a matter of varying a charge which is already being levied it can hardly be said that the same consideration applies. We must keep a sense of proportion in this matter. We must consider what the country thinks of our procedure and have some sympathy with the many members of the electorate who find our procedure inexplicable.
There are umpteen precedents, as the Leader of the Opposition reminded us, of Oppositions reminding Governments what those Governments said when they were in Opposition and of Governments reminding Oppositions of what those Oppositions said when they were in power. As the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) is in his place I would remind him——

Mr. Ede: Is that a grievance?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: He said on 3rd March, 1947:
The difference between the two sides of the House is this: We think that this is a good Bill, a necessary Bill.
He was then interrupted, after which he went on:
… adequate opportunities for discussing it can be found within the terms of the Guillotine


Motion, and we intend to get the Bill this Session"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd March, 1947; Vol. 434, c 131.]
If it was fair for the right hon. Gentleman to say that on such Bills as the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill, I think that we are entitled to say it on these Bills.

Mr. William Ross: The Government want the Bills this month, not this Session.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to interrupt, I think it would be better if he were to rise in his place.

Mr. Ross: Would the hon. Gentleman be prepared to support an Amendment altering the date to "this Session" instead of insisting on "this month"?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: No, I certainly would not, because, here again, it is a question of the relative importance. At that time we were discussing a Bill the purpose of which was to nationalise transport, whereas now we are merely varying charges already in force. I think that the relative importance of the two Bills is of great relevance to this debate. To me, the two Bills with which we are dealing are nothing like as important as were the Transport Bill and the Town and Country Planning Bill.
I know that hon. Members opposite are using what they allege the country will say about these charges as one of the main reasons to justify their action over this Guillotine Motion. It so happens that, purely by chance—I assure hon. Members that it was purely by chance—I ran into one of my constituents while he was in Cambridgeshire the day before yesterday. He is rising 80 years of age and he told me that his father reached 90 years of age and that he had a grandfather who did the same. His comment on the charges was, "Everyone knows that there is absolute abuse of the present use of prescriptions."[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh.") "The bill is getting completely out of hand." He definitely supports the Government in what they are doing.

Mr. Michael Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman allow me——

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: No, I will not give way. No doubt, hon. Members who wish to speak will seek to catch your

eye later in the debate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker.
I honestly believe that hon. Members opposite lack one thing above all others in these matters, and that is a sense of proportion. They are making themselves absolutely ridiculous, and I am anxious that they should not make Parliament ridiculous at the same time. [An HON. MEMBER: "Who threw the penny on the Table?"] The hon. Member asks who put the penny on the Table. I did and I will tell him exactly why I did so. It was because a then Minister of the Crown, Mr. Herbert Morrison, accused the Tory Party of wanting a world war. I thought that such an accusation was beyond words and that a gesture was the only thing necessary.

Mr. C. Pannell: The hon. Member is now referring to an incident for which he was ordered out of the House by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown, and on his return made an abject apology. Are you prepared, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to allow the hon. Member to justify now what he did then?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The hon. Member was asked why he threw the penny, and he has given an answer.

Mr. M. Stewart: On a point of order. The hon. Member was not asked why he had thrown the penny, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. He was giving us a lecture on the dignified behaviour of the House and some of my hon. Friends reminded him of his misbehaviour in the House in the past. They did so with the words, "Who threw the penny?" Nobody asked him why he did so. We all know the reason for that. The hon. Member himself chose, quite gratuitously, to bring in a justification for something for which he had previously apologised to the House. What you are being asked, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, is whether that behaviour is in order.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: As far as I know, the hon. Member has said nothing which is out of order.

Mr. George Brown: Further to that point of order.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I am on a point of order. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Perhaps we could clear up the misunderstanding. I thought that what was


shouted across the Floor of the House was who threw the penny. I think that the hon. Member meant to state that I threw the penny. I admitted that I did. I am sorry if I misunderstood a statement for what I thought was a question.

Mr. G. Brown: I want to pursue the point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, with which you have twice—and I say this quite respectfully—dealt very shortly indeed. It is a very important point, made first by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) and then by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. M. Stewart).
The point is that at some stage an hon. Member is engaged in an incident which is regarded by the Speaker as disreputable, and has to leave the House. That hon. Member subsequently returns and makes an abject apology. But at a subsequent stage, as has happened this afternoon, he then proceeds to make a confident justification for the incident for which he had to make an abject apology.
We asked you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether, in fact, that was in order. May I put this to you before you answer? If you are going to reply as you have twice done, then obviously the whole business of respect for the House and of enforcing respect goes out of the door, because then, presumably, one merely makes an abject apology and then seeks to justify it later on and relies on the Chair to say, "You are perfectly entitled to do so." I think that we are entitled to ask for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, whether it is in order for the hon. Member to seek to justify today something which was regarded as disreputable before and for which he then had to apologise.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I did not apologise to the House. May I remind hon. Members that, in fact, I apologised privately to Mr. Speaker at that time but not to the House. In answering the question thrown across the House at me I was not attempting to justify the incident one way or the other, but only the reason why I did what I did, and it was not intended as a discourtesy to yourself, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to the Chair or to any hon. Member. I was simply trying to answer a question which I thought I had been asked. I am extremely sorry if I have in any way trespassed on your

indulgence, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, or if I have done anything remotely out of order.

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. The hon. Member said that he had apologised to Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown but not to the House. An hon. Member cannot apologise to the Chair without apologising to the House. For this purpose the Chair is the House. I ask you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, not to take this affront lightly. You appear to be taking it rather casually, and we on this side of the House feel very strongly about it.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I object to that reflection on the Chair. I think that far too much fuss is being made about this matter.

Mr. Pannell: No.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I personally do not remember what the hon. Member did on that occasion some years ago or whether an apology was made or not. It is not my business. I suggest that we get on with discussing the Motion.

Mr. Pannell: Further to that point of order. I was here at the time. The Hon. Member tossed a penny across the House.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: No point of order arises on it.

Mr. Pannell: Further to that point of order. A point of order is involved, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, when you seek to rebuke me for something I have said. The point is—if I may say so in parentheses—that you said you did not know what had happened. But the fact is that the hon. Member, in a crowded House, was ordered out by Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown. He cannot repudiate an apology once made, and, if I may say so, it is for the Chair—I withdraw the word "casually" I did not mean it in that way—to maintain the dignity set up by its predecessors. That is what we are asking now.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I am not concerned with what happened in the incident some years ago. The hon. Member has not repudiated at all any step he took then.

Mr. Stephen McAdden: On a point of order. Is it in order,


Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for the hon. Member who raised the point of order to say while you are giving your Ruling that you are not concerned for the dignity of the House?

Mr. Pannell: On a point of order. I did not say that. Whatever is said about political parties, no one can accuse me lightly of not telling the truth. While you were speaking, I said that it is the dignity of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We must take it that, in referring to an hon. Member, we mean that he is an honourable one. We do not impute dishonour to a Member lightly. [Interruption.] I am dealing with Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am not being ruled by the rump of the Lobby fodder opposite.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: If I might try to bring the discussion back to the Motion, without re-arousing what has become somewhat irrelevant to the issue before us today, what I said was that I did apologise personally to Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown by letter. I have never apologised in the House for what I did. I certainly do not wish in any way to repudiate the apology which I made in writing to the Chairman, and, of course, that stands. I am sorry if anything I have said this afternoon has in any way led anyone to suppose otherwise.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has made considerable play with the fact that the Korean War was on when he imposed a charge on spectacles. If there is this great interest in the amount of money spent on defence, which has to be spent on defence, how conies it then that when we had the Navy Estimates the other day, concerning a sum in excess of £500 million, there were never more than twelve hon. Member's opposite during the whole of that debate?

Mr. Hayman: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that at 11 p.m., when my hon. Friend rose to reply to the debate on behalf of the opposition, there were still hon. Member's on both sides of the Committee who wanted to speak?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Of course, I accept that. All I say is that if there is this great interest in the safety of the

public purse, to which the right hon. Gentleman opposite, who has now disappeared from the Chamber, referred, how comes it that when a sum in excess of £500 million is being levied on the people to pay for the Royal Navy not more than twelve hon. Members from the other side of the House were present in Committee of Supply during the day? That I know because I was here myself.

Mr. G. Brown: On a point of order. It will obviously now be a matter of great importance, when this point is subsequently replied to, that those who seek to catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, should be allowed to do so now that you have allowed a discussion of what happened during the debate in Committee of Supply on the Navy Estimates. May I get it quite clear that you do not propose to rule later that any discussions of what went on in the debate on the Navy Estimates is out of order?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I cannot give a Ruling on what someone else may say later on. A reference to the number of people present in the House at a certain time does not seem to me to be very relevant to this debate.

Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order. You will appreciate, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that we are now in a difficult position if we try to criticise what happened during the debate when the hon. Gentleman was in the Chair. What do we do then? What protection shall we have in future debates from remarks about the conduct of hon. Members from an hon. Member who was actually in the Chair?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order with which I am concerned at the moment.

Mr. Brown: Further to that point of order. Is not the whole debate out of hand?

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. C. Pannell: On a point of order. I understand and I always have understood that the antecedents of the Chair must never be referred to, however lurid they may be, and in the same way anyone occupying the Chair should not refer to the conduct of hon. Members when he was in the Chair. You can rebuke


me now, Sir Gordon, and I must take it, and the hon. Gentleman could have rebuked us then, but cannot now use his position in the Chair, in which position he had to be in the Chamber, to refer to matters which arose when he was presiding over the Committee. That is really an infraction of impartiality on the part of the Chair, with which we are not prepared to acquiesce.

Sir Spencer Summers: Further to that point of order. Surely it is quite clear that the Chair cannot cast reflections on those hon. Members who are not present. It was the absence of almost every other hon. Member from that side of the House to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. S. Silverman: Further to that point of order. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has done two things which in my submission are unprecedented and, I submit, are out of order. One is that, having committed a defiance of the House so as to be called upon to leave the Chamber until he had done some sort of penance by withdrawal, he has now sought to justify that, and now proceeds within two minutes to use knowledge acquired while sitting in the Chair in order to make a point about a specific debate when he did not sit in the Chair. Is not the whole thing now becoming so completely out of order that very soon we shall have no rules at all?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think we had better return to the Motion before the House.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: The remarks I was making, I assure you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were not in any way intended to imply——

Mr. Silverman: Then, why on earth did the hon. Gentleman make them?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Let me finish. They were not intended to imply that I thought that those hon. Members in the Chamber at the time were doing anything wrong. Nor was I in any way referring to the merits of what was being discussed. All I am saying is that it seemed to me rather extraordinary that so few Members were present.

Mr. Silverman: On a point of order. I ask you whether you will rule for or

against the proposition that any hon. Member of this House who occupies the Chair of the House during a debate is not entitled to use what he then observed or what he thought about it while sitting in the Chair in order to influence a subsequent debate. Is that right or wrong?

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Before you give your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, may I say that I was not in the Chair when the Civil Lord of the Admiralty introduced the Navy Estimates, and the remarks I made were based on that. I think that it would probably be acceptable to the House to say that a majority of hon. Members turn up for a Minister making a speech, but when the Minister was making his speech, only 12 hon. Members opposite were present.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that we should get on with the Motion.

Mr. Silverman: No.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: I bow to your Ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I apologise humbly if anything that I have said today has embarrassed you.
May I conclude my remarks. I am sure that it will relieve the House if I do. I believe that a Guillotine Motion should be used only sparingly. I believe that the Leader of the House made an absolutely irrefutable case for its use on this occasion. Whenever any opposition is made to any Motion for a Guillotine, it seems to me to be absolutely essential that a sense of proportion should prevail. I believe, however, that the Opposition have no idea how ludicrous they are making themselves look in the country by protesting against this Guillotine Motion.
I do not believe that they have any idea what the real opinion of the country is about a Bill dealing with Health Service charges. I do not think that they have any idea how the country fails to understand why they should want to keep the House sitting night after night protesting against a Bill which is proposing to raise prescription charges from ls. to 2s. and other small increases in the contributions by means of insurance stamps in order to ensure that the bill does not go on rising until it is well above £1,000 million for a National Health Service which everybody knows many people are tending to abuse.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) did me the honour to quote from a speech I made in a similar debate when I was speaking from the Treasury Dispatch Box. The Leader of the House quoted it against me once before, and on that occasion I frankly accepted what I said. I said that I stood by it. I only wish that the Government had as good a case for the line they are taking today as I had on that occasion. Then we were carrying through a revolution. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely has virtually said that this afternoon. He did not like the revolution and, therefore, he opposed it.
The Leader of the House is carrying through a counter-revolution, and this is one of the phases of it. It may not be a very important phase, but it is a phase of his counter-revolution which is designed to destroy what we did between 1945 and 1951. I have as much right to feel indignant at the way that counterrevolution is working as had the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely at the way in which our revolution worked. It all depends on which side hon. Members are sitting. I have been here long enough to know that, and I have taken part in a good many debates on this issue from both sides of the House. If I were sitting on the benches opposite today, and had the same power as the right hon. Gentleman has, and if hon. Members of his party were on this side of the House obstructing what I waned to do, I should have no twinge of conscience about adopting the same line as the right hon. Gentleman has adopted today.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Delargy) who had an article on this matter in yesterday's issue of Reynolds News. I was brought up always to read Reynolds News before I went to Sunday school. It was always my first reading on Sunday morning——

Mr. Frederic Harris: Does the right hon. Gentleman feel any better for it?

Mr. Ede: Oh yes, and I think that the hon. Gentleman would be a great deal better if he had followed my example
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock drew attention to the way in which we hold views according to the attitude

we have toward people who indulge in all-night sittings. He quoted from the issue of the Evening Standard of 16th February, which said, referring to my right hon. and hon. Friends:
The danger is not so much that Labour M.P.s will exhaust themselves. It is that they will exhaust public patience with their party and Parliament. By keeping the House of Commons awake they will send their audience outside Westminster to sleep.
That is supposed to be a condemnation of right hon. and hon. Gentleman sitting on this side of the House who continue to stay until the Chief Patronage Secretary agrees that it is time we should all go home.
Then my hon. Friend quoted from the Evening Standard of 1st March:
For the Tory minority group on the L.C.C. the sitting was a minor triumph. It had kept the Council sitting for the longest period since the Labour Party took control of County Hall 27 years ago.
When this game is being played simultaneously by the Labour Party here and by the Tory Party on the other side of Westminster Bridge, if one is a Tory, one thinks the Labour Party wrong and the Tory Party right. So do not let us have any more hypocrisy about it. I have said that what I said in 1946 was quoted against me a few years ago by the Leader of the House, when he was moving a Motion of this sort, and I then accepted it. So long as I sit in this House, and when my party is in power, I shall support the efforts of the Government to get their business. But if the party opposite is in power, I shall oppose the Government getting their business, and I hope that no one will have any illusions on that score.
The trouble is that the Leader of the House does not now participate in our proceedings in Standing Committees. It might be a good thing if sometimes he would discard the Olympian aloofness which he displays towards us and descend to the level of ordinary mortals. He will not get anywhere near Olympus by coming to a Standing Committee. During this Session and the last Session I have been a member of Standing Committees which discussed Bills of which the right hon. Gentleman had moved the Second Reading. We have had the astounding spectacle, during the Committee stage discussions, of seeing three junior Ministers from the right hon. Gentleman's Department present to deal


with the Bills. Even Lord Morrison, with all his dreams of empire in the administrative sphere, never got higher than two junior Ministers. For six-and-a-quarter years, including a period when I was Leader of the House as well as Home Secretary, I had only one.
So far, because of the reasonable attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman's subordinates, we have been able to discuss very important legislation in Standing Committee. There was the Charities Bill, which later became the Charities Act, and the Betting and Gaming Bill, which became the Betting and Gaming Act—they should not be confused. We completed the Committee stage of both those long Measures without any need to use the Closure Motion or to Guillotine the discussion. So well was the Committee conducted that the right hon. Gentleman has taken one of its members to become his P.P.S., that hon. Gentleman having, so to speak, served his apprenticeship on the Committee. We have just completed the Committee stage of the Criminal Justice Bill. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to bear in mind the treatment accorded to his Ministers by the Opposition during 1960 and 1961 with the treatment which I received from his hon. Friends in 1948, when I was Home Secretary and attempting to get a similar Measure through the House.
We must realise that the chief enemy of a Government is time. I do not mind how reactionary a Government may be, they still do something which makes a demand on the time of the House and for that reason the House has equipped Governments with means to extend Parliamentary time by suspending the Ten o'clock Rule. Surely Governments do not bring in Bills which originate in the Committee of Ways and Means and are not amenable to the Ten o'clock Rule without having thought it out.
A Government also can lessen the time of the House by moving the Closure Motion. The astounding thing about the Health Service Bill is that although we have heard complaints about what happened in Standing Committee, the Closure Motion was never moved. I have been reading carefully the OFFICIAL REPORT of the debates in the Standing Committee and I see no indication that the Minister or his Parliamentary Secretary, who were leading the Committee, as

it appears to me, on some of the occasions, gave any hint that they thought the time had arrived when such a Motion ought to be moved.
If there was this alleged delay and obstruction on the part of my right hon. and hon. Friends, why was no such hint dropped? We had such a hint often enough during the proceedings on the Criminal Justice Bill. Why was not the Closure Motion moved? So far as I know, no hon. Member in the Committee which discussed this Bill had any hint, until Monday afternoon, when the right hon. Gentleman announced it, that this Motion would be before the House today, or that such a thing was contemplated.
If any Government are being obstructed, and they have exhausted the powers that the House has already given them to end obstruction in a Committee, I defend their right to come to the House with a Guillotine Motion. However, I cannot see why the House should be troubled with this when the Closure has never been moved during the three sittings there have been in Committee. We know that the Government will get their way. They have lost a day. They have given away a day by tabling this Motion for debate. I suppose that that is what the Evening Standard would call a minor triumph for the Opposition. When dealing with a Government as iniquitous as this one is, getting even one day from them is more than a minor triumph.
The Government will get their Bill, but they will get it with the maximum of irritation to hon. Members on this side of the House. They will make the country understand that they cannot get their own supporters so to support them in Committee that they can get the Bill by ordinary means. In spite of my lurid past in this respect, I shall vote gaily and confidently for the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) and only regret that what happened in the latter part of 1959 makes it certain that the Leader of the House will get his way, despite the weight of the argument against him.

5.41 p.m.

Sir Spencer Summers: I very much preferred the straightforward remarks of the right hon. Member for


South Shields (Mr. Ede) to the mixture of arrogance and smugness which characterised the first two speeches from the benches opposite.
It is all very well for the right hon. Member for South Shields to argue that the Motion should not have been tabled until the Government had tried the use of the Closure in Standing Committee, but whenever the Closure is moved, at any rate in the Chamber, there are always shouts of "Gag" from hon. Members opposite. That negatives any merit which the right hon. Gentleman may think that his argument has.
There is another reason. If the Government table a timetable Motion, everyone concerned knows what amount of time is left for any part of a Bill. Because of the uncertainty of the Closure, hon. Members who are not within the confidence of the Patronage Secretary cannot adjust themselves or their consideration of the Clauses because they have no knowledge of the time which will be allotted to each Clause. For these two reasons the right hon. Gentleman's argument has no merit.
It has been said by hon. Members opposite that the Motion is misplaced because it will curtail discussion of the subjects dealt with in the two Bills. The public will be very much more interested in examining the merits of that aspect of the problem by seeing how much time has been and will be spent on these subjects than by listening to quotations by either side of what the other side did when it was in power. I am very glad that the right hon. Member for South Shields said that we should not have any more of those comparisons.
This morning, I did some research work to find out what time has been allotted and what use has been made of it. No mention has yet been made of the fact that shortly before the Bills were introduced a Motion of censure was tabled which provided opportunity for six and a half hours' discussion and nine speeches on the broad pattern of the policy represented by these Bills. Then the National Health Service Contributions Bill was introduced. Two hours were taken up on the Ways and Means Resolution. One hour was spent on the Money Resolution. Twelve hours were spent on Second Reading, involving thirty-six speeches. A further nine hours have already been taken up in Com-

mittee, making so far a total of twenty-four hours and no less than ninety-one speeches. My right hon. Friend told us earlier that the time forecast in the Motion will enable a further twenty-four hours to be spent on that topic.
I will give the House the figures for the National Health Service Bill. Two hours were spent on the Money Resolution. Five and a half hours were spent on Second Reading. Seven and a half hours were spent on the Committee stage, with a total of fifty speeches. There will be ten or more hours, with relevant speeches, from the time allotted under the Motion.
Because the subject dealt with is not confined to the powers granted by the two Bills, there was a further opportunity through Prayers to draw attention to other aspects of this broad policy. The power to vary the pharmaceutical charges requires different authority from the power to vary the hospital charges. That is why there will be another Prayer this evening, notwithstanding the fact that there were four hours and twelve speeches on the other aspect of these charges a short time ago.
Six and a half hours were spent on the censure debate. Twenty-four hours have so far been devoted to the National Health Service Contributions Bill. Fifteen hours have so far been spent on the National Health Service Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: That is what Parliament is for.

Sir S. Summers: If the hon. Member wishes to interrupt, he should rise to his feet and do so.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to the hon. Member. I do not quite know what the recital of the number of hours and the arithmetic has to do with it.

Sir S. Summers: I will explain.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member has given way to me, but he is now on his feet. This is the very stuff of Parliament. It is what Parliament is for.

Sir S. Summers: It is precisely because the hon. Gentleman has not the courtesy or patience to wait until I have finished making my point that he must needs interrupt. When I have finished making


my point I shall expect him to have the intelligence to follow why I am making this "recital". I cannot expect the hon. Member to follow my argument when I have only got half way through it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member has thwarted any further prospect he might have had of interrupting me by the discourtesy he has just shown and by his ill manners in failing to stand up when speaking in the House. He has been here much longer than I have and it is time he learned that that is the method adopted in the House for asking permission to interrupt a speaker.
I was reciting the time that has already been taken on these subjects. This is relevant to the merits of the Motion, which it is alleged will unreasonably curtail consideration of the Measures. Six and a half hours were spent on the Censure Debate, twenty-four hours on the National Health Service Contributions Bill, fifteen hours on the National Health Service Bill, five and a half hours on the Prayers, and there will be about thirty-four hours to come from the opportunities provided by the Motion. That makes eighty-five hours and scope for about 260 speeches.
I echo the remarks made by an hon. Friend behind me. The public thinks that it is "daft" that we cannot arrange our affairs better than having to stay up all night to give consideration to important matters long after a reasonable day's work has been done. In parenthesis, I would say that it is really remarkable that so experienced a man as the Leader of the Opposition should imagine that he is entitled to credit from the public for sitting up, and encouraging the "troops" to stay up, to deal with these matters at such unreasonable hours.
If this previous use of time is translated into reasonable hours—3.30 to 10 p.m., with an Adjournment debate to follow—it is roughly equivalent to twelve normal Parliamentary days. If we consider what other matters properly come before Parliament in the economic sphere, in foreign affairs, in matters dealing with the social services, and in all manner of things, it is really completely out of proportion—and, in my judgment, we are already out of proportion—in allotting the equivalent of twelve full Parliamentary days to a topic like this.
I do not want to say anything to suggest that we know the Opposition's policy better than they know it themselves. I can only say that the Government are in no way suffering from having this timetable brought in, because the public knows perfectly well that if better use had already been made by the Opposition of the time available to them this Motion need never have been moved.

5.50 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: My only comment to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) is that he did not argue as he has been doing for the last ten minutes when he was fighting the Steel Bill tooth and nail.
I want, briefly, to refer to the speech of the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke). I am sorry that he is not here, but I think that I understand just why he is not—he is probably revising his speech. Of that speech I would say only three things——

Mr. C. Pannell: Making another apology, perhaps.

Dr. King: I am certain that the Leader of the House——

Mr. B. T. Parkin: He has gone to help the hon. and gallant Member to revise his speech.

Dr. King: —listening to his hon. and gallant Friend's speech, must have thought, "Heaven preserve me from my friends."
The hon. and gallant Member suggested that my right hon. Friend had not read the Bible. He then proceeded to quote Scripture, and I may say that I have never heard scripture quoted with such venom as he used when he was quoting Jude in one of his off moments. I must say that if that were the only bit of Jude that had come to us, then St. Jude would be very inferior to Jude the Obscure.
I do not want to refer to everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but will simply say that he is the last hon. Member in this House from whom Her Majesty's Opposition will take the charge that we behave ridiculously. It is within the recollection of, perhaps, most hon. Members that when the hon. Member was in opposition he used his power and his place as an Opposition Member to resist the Government of that


day in all the conventional ways—and, indeed, in some unconventional ways, too. I leave it at that.
At the very outset, let me say that I believe in the Guillotine as a necessary part of British Parliamentary government—and may I ask HANSARD to print "Guillotine" in inverted commas for fear of any misunderstanding outside this House—but that it should be used only when it is fully justified. I believe that the Government's introduction of the Guillotine Motion today is not only unwarranted, but will do them more harm than all the good they hope to get from the timetable.
The tactics of Conservatives are always to play down opposition. The hon. Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston) referred to the Ingoldsby Legends and told us of the Jackdaw of Rheims. He said, with a contented smile, that when the Opposition had finished at the end of the day no one would be a "penny the worse." All he meant was that the Government, with their 100 majority, will carry this Mition despite all that the Opposition may say.
I would remind him that there was someone in that poem who was a penny the worse, and that was the guilty person. In the poem sometime the curse is put on, in comes a very wretched, very bedraggled and very miserable jackdaw, on whom the curse has fallen. The Government will come out of this debate, as they will in all Health Ser- vice debates, as did that sorry jackdaw.
Conservatives believe in the rights of minorities and in the sacred duty of an Opposition to oppose, provided that they themselves are the minority and that they are the Opposition. As my right hon. Friend has already mentioned, Tory newspapers last week were praising to the sky the valiant fight of the Tory minority in the Labour-controlled London County Council, and the all-night sitting that they managed to spend there. Tory councillors, if in a minority, demand their share of aldermanic seats and mayoralties, and the like.
When in Opposition, Lord Boothby told the world that the Opposition's sacred duty was to harry the Government, and to keep the Labour Government up until physical exhaustion would make them succumb. When the Tories are in opposition, to fight the wretched

Socialist Government is something British, and they have at their resources most of the weapons of radio and Press publicity to help them in their duty of resisting the work of a Labour Government.
The Conservative in power is a different animal. His is, after all, the ruling class, and has been for centuries. To oppose him—at least, beyond a mild protest—he regards as improper. It is not cricket to oppose a Tory Government—it is 'not British. Wherever Tories have an overwhelming majority——

Mr. C. Pannell: Or, if I may say so, to question the umpire.

Dr. King: I will pass that, because I do not share my hon. Friend's views about the umpire in that case to which he refers.
Wherever Tories have an overwhelming majority, either in local or in national government, they treat the little Labour group as non-existent, and prate about no-party politics in local government. Nor is there any question of minority rights or proportionate allocation of aldermanic seats for the Labour minority—always provided that the Tory majority is big enough and certain not to be shifted within a foreseeable period of time——

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Gentleman's case is that it is different when the Conservative Party is in opposition and when it is in power. Instead of saying "Conservative Party". might he not substitute "all parties"?

Dr. King: I hope to deal with that before I sit down. As the hon. Gentleman no doubt heard, I began by saying that I believe in the Guillotine. We will talk about that when I come to that part of my speech.
There are two reasons for this Guillotine Motion. One is that the Government, in pursuit of their traditional acceptance of the belief that the Labour Party is an intruder in this House of Commons, thought that their vast majority in the House entitled them to fill the early part of their period of office with a mass of important legislation, and drive it through the House. Somehow, they believed that the Opposition, like good Britons, would either take it lying down or, if not, would be swamped night after


night in the Division Lobbies. That is especially so as they believed that the Labour Party was split from top to bottom—split so drastically that it could not fight and fight and fight again in the House of Commons.
The Government were wrong in their interpretation of the Labour Party's position. During the last three or four weeks, we have not only proved that we are a united party but, also, that we are determined to fight and fight the Government, and that unity means strength. That is why the Leader of the House, who was to take us for a ride on the tiger finds that, instead of a smile, there is a very anxious look on the face of the tiger when he looks wanly at the mass of legislation which he had hoped to dragoon through the House this Session. There are too many Bills and too little time to get them through the House if the House behaves like a real Parliament and the Opposition fight. And the Opposition are fighting.
The second reason for the Guillotine is that the Government have lamentably failed to appreciate the strength of feeling on this side of the House which is aroused by the attack made by the Minister of Health on the National Health Service, on the one hand, and the failure of Her Majesty's Government to realise the Parliamentary competence of the Opposition, on the other. I do not know whether they really appreciate the depth of feeling that we have about the National Health Service. I am certain, in my own mind, that they did not think that we were parliamentarily competent to stage the kind of battle against Government Measures that they carried out in the days when we were in power and they were in opposition.
A Government need a Guillotine. The majority have rights just as the Opposition have rights. In the last resort, the Government must govern, but while it is excellent to have a giant strength, it is even more excellent to use that strength wisely, with judgment and discretion, and to use it only as a last resort. This present use of the Guillotine is anything but that. It is the reaching of a panic-stricken man for a big stick when a boy begins to put his fists up.
Consideration of the National Health Service Bill in Standing Committee has hardly begun. The battle of the two

Bills, the one in Standing Committee and the one on the Floor of the House, is a real battle. It is one of argument, conviction and discussion. It is one in which the Opposition have speech after speech to make, none of which can be regarded as filibustering. There has been nothing in this Parliament like the outrageous filibustering of public school boys out on a rag that we witnessed in the days when the Gas Bill was in Standing Committee, or the nightly Prayers which marked the 1950 Session of Parliament, and which led me, in my first year in Parliament, when I used to give lectures to people about the House of Commons, to talk about the normal time for ending the day's debates being ten o'clock, but to add that I had not had a normal day in that first year.
I, too, have been looking at the attitude of Her Majesty's Government to the question of the Guillotine in the debate on the Iron and Steel Bill on 25th November, 1948. I would remind the House that we were giving not a miserable two or three days to the discussion of the Bill we were giving 35 days to the Measure under the timetable. The Tory Opposition at that time called it a "miserable 35 days".
The late Oliver Stanley, whom all of us loved, dived off the deep-end and plunged into the debate, so far as so gentle a man could wax violent. He said:
Frankly, I intensely dislike the Guillotine procedure in any circumstances.
A Tory in opposition, he was opposed to the very principle of the Guillotine. Warming up, he continued and said that it would
… lead to the complete disruption of the functions of the House as anything more than a body of people, called upon to register broad decisions, aye or nay, on Government Measures which are put before them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 25th November. 1948; Vol. 458, c 1534–5.]
This was a powerful opening from the Tory Opposition Front Bench—an attack on the Guillotine itself.
Sir Anthony Eden wound up for the Opposition. He was always a bonny fighter and he waded in, in forthright fashion.
He said, I think, very wisely:
This House has never been a mere assembly for registration. It has never been a mere


debating society. It has never merely been a House which the Government used as an instrument of registration. Where certain Members oppose the Bill in principle they take an active part in trying to make it workable.
He told the House that what he had said so far was a quotation from a speech by the present Lord Attlee. He went on to say:
How can we do that under this ridiculous Guillotine procedure!
The right hon. Gentleman said, of the Guillotine, that it
takes a Bill out of the reach of five-sixths of the House and brings it back in front of us for only four days."—
only four days. Again, I would ask the House to compare the times allotted our Guillotine procedure when the Labour Party was in power, with the times under the present timetable.
Sir Anthony Eden continued:
Of all the Government's actions in defiance of parliamentary democracy, this is the worst they have done yet. Before any detailed discussion of the Bill has commenced, the Government have laid down their inadequate timetable."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, c, 1446–52.]
That is exactly our charge against the present timetable. Erskine May tells us that the usual procedure for the Guillotine is that it should be introduced after there has been some evidence of delay and obstruction in the work of the Committee. Nobody can argue that that is true of the present Standing Committee or the National Health Service Bill. It certainly cannot be argued about the Committee on the Floor of the House. But those two right hon. Members were, after all, grave Front Benchers speaking. Let us look at the Conservative back benchers in that same debate.
The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) also had a go. From his aloof, patrician viewpoint, he scornfully looked down on the Socialist parvenu Government and read them a lecture on how to govern. He said:
… I do not believe they yet understand the essence of parliamentary government, that Government by discussion is the secret of liberty and that minority rights must extend very far into parliamentary time, if Britain is to remain free.
Then, with characteristic and aristocratic fervour, he said what my right

hon. Friend has already quoted from the Front Bench:
They are gorillas plunging about in the garden of English democracy."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458. c. 1494.]
In the same debate we had the passionate eloquence of that very fierce advocate, the present Minister for Science, who said some very wise things and some not so wise. He uttered the profound sentence:
… truth cannot prevail without adequate discussion.
Then, a little more like an advocate in a law court, he said:
… the Government are murdering parliamentary democracy and those who support the Government are either their accomplices or their dupes.
I do not charge anyone on the Government Front Bench or on the back benches with being innocent dupes. I believe that they all know just what they are doing.
The Minister for Science warmed up and said:
… if ever there came a time … when the Government of the day were able to say to the Opposition, 'We are going to get our Measure, whatever you say, by a particular day, in accordance with a particular time table.' we should then have passed over the line which divides Parliamentary democracy from a dictatorship.
With Hitler fresh in his mind, he added—at col. 1479 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—the word "Reichstag."
Here, then, were the Opposition denouncing the Guillotine on principle, although the only real reason was that the Tories objected to the Labour Government's existence. But the Minister for Science also said in that debate some very searching things on the function of an Opposition. He said:
… it is in the nature of any Opposition to anger the Government, and if it does not anger the Government and impress it with its mischievousness, irresponsibility and obstruction, it is not fulfilling its proper part as an Opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948; Vol. 458, cc. 1476–82.]
Although I would not accept some of what Mrs. Malaprop would have called the soft impeachments, we are indeed fulfilling over the National Health Service Bill our proper part as an Opposition. I would ask the Minister for Science, if it were possible and if he were not remote from this place, why he is allowing the Leader of the House to


turn the House of Commons into what the Minister for Science once called a Reichstag, simply because we are doing our faithful duty to those who sent us here, to our Socialist principles, and to the pattern once laid down by the Minister for Science.
I regard this Guillotine as a confession not of strength, but of weakness. It informs the county that so deep is the cleavage between both sides of the House about the National Health Service that the Government have had to abandon all pretence at arguing the matter out fairly and fully and they have had to use for this Measure the weapon which other Governments have used only as a last resort and after serious delays and obstructions. I regard the introduction of this Guillotine as a moral victory for the Opposition.
I confess that what matters to me most today is not the Guillotine but what is being guillotined. In this debate, the Robespierre is the Minister of Health, and what is being guillotined is not merely a set of debates, but the Health Service itself. I regard this as far more grave, and it will cause far more unhappiness for the poorest people in the country than the mere carrying out of what is now proposed by the Government in their Motion.
I believe that the Government know that the attack on the Health Service has already received such a drubbing in the House of Commons and it has aroused such anger and distress in the country that they feel that the sooner the crime against the Health Service is completed the better. Their motto is:
If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well
It were done quickly
I say to the Government that it will not be done, it will not be finished, when the Bills are carried. The Opposition will continue to fight these and similar Measures of the Government. Some day. we shall bring back the National Health Service to what it was. This Guillotine is enabling the Government to shift more of the burden which ought to be borne fairly by people according to their capacity to pay by one poll tax on to all people including the poor and by a second poll tax on to only the sick. The Government ought to be ashamed of this

Motion, but even more of the Bills which necessitate its being brought in.

6.12 p.m.

Sir Kenneth Pickthorn: I am a little sorry that the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) did not turn his attention for part of the time to what I hope it is not patronising to describe as the very impressive speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers). It is not always easy at this stage of a debate to bring, I do not say new thoughts, but at any rate a new exactitude of fact into a part of the subject hitherto rather neglected in the way that my hon. Friend did it this evening. I regret that the hon. Member for Itchen did not take that up.
I begin by saying that not because as one pedagogue to another, I take the chance while I am on my feet to correct or rebuke the hon. Member for Itchen I say it partly as a kind of anticipatory excuse for the sins I am about to commit: I shall speak, if the House will permit me, in the rather chance order of notes which I have taken of previous speeches and the very chance notes which I have taken of previous occasions like this. Several hon. Members have done that part of their homework much better than I did mine, and the effect will be, I am sorry to say, that I shall not have a continuous argument. I hope that I shall be forgiven for that.
I think that the hon. Member for Itchen was subconsciously impressed by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, when he referred to all the Health Service debates: he did it with great emphasis on "all". I think that my hon. Friend had brought back half way up from his subconscious the fact that we have already had a great many hours, amounting to a great many days, of Parliamentary time if Parliamentary time be divided by the ordinary six hours or so, devoted to debating the Health Service. The hon. Member had that in mind, I suspect, and I wish that far more people in the House would have it in their minds.
I wondered where the hon. Member for Itchen got the stuff about the way the Tories talk about this and that not being cricket and so on.

Mr. J. T. Price: By reading.

Sir K. Pickthorn: He attached great importance—almost as much importance as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) attached to the General Epistle of Jude—to the testimony of Lord Beaverbrook and Lord Boothby. I am bound to say that I should not myself have thought that what Lord Beaverbrook or Lord Boothby said about the Tory Party was irrefragable testimony about its character either as a party or as a collection of individuals.
I thought that the hon. Member risked his position a little when, towards the middle of his speech, he worked up his courage to say, "We are a united party". I felt a little tempted to tell him that he had better be careful or he would find himself sent to Coventry. I had not meant to go back to this, which is the small change of party politics at the moment—it is not my fault—but I think that hon. Members opposite should not begin to be cock-a-hoop about it yet. There are many teams large and small—I was going to even teams of two, one man and one woman, thinking particularly of a marriage—which can be induced to stop biting each other's Adam's apples or scratching each other's eyes out for just long enough to turn and damn the eyes of a bystander. It would a great mistake to think that every menage of which that can be said is a united menage.
The right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition told us that it was merely because the Opposition mean to oppose the Bill that the Guillotine was being erected. That will not do. It is not merely because the Opposition mean to oppose the Bill. It is because already many hours have been occupied, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury indicated, and because there was plainly the possibility of very many more hours being occupied.
I seem to be almost unique now, after the death of the spokesmen to whom the hon. Member for Itchen, quite rightly, so kindly referred, Oliver Stanley, because, like Oliver Stanley—if I may dare to compare the smallest things with the greatest—I dislike Guillotines as a matter of course and as a matter of

principle. What is more, I dislike closures, too. I am a sufficient racialist not to like French words until they have been in the English vocabulary for at least three generations, and I do not think that "clôture" has got so far yet.
One principle which we all tend to forget but which we really cannot leave out of account, because it makes the Parliamentary drama into "Hamlet" without the Prince of Denmark, is that, of course, the minority has rights and each minority within minorities and minorities within the majority ought to have rights, but the essence and the principle of the thing upon which all procedure depends—nowadays we have no constitution except our procedure; that is all the protection anybody has—is that in the end the majority gets its way, and the majority must decide when the end comes.
I do not want to exacerbate the debate, very much—[Laughter.]—but I thought that we had a little too much of this stuff—which, incidentally, I think was out of order—about our motives and how we are all aristocrats and look down our noses. If hon. Members opposite were as obscure as I am and sat far enough back, they would have to look down their noses. It is the only way one can see anyone. The Leader of the Opposition's remarks about Tories wanting to go to bed so that they can earn money in the morning were pretty nasty, rather dirty. [Interruption.] Of course they want to earn money in the morning. Who does not want properly to earn money in the morning? Why not? [An HON. MEMBER: "Then what are you grumbling about?"] I am grumbling about the way in which the Leader of the Opposition used the innuendo that there was something almost improper, quite corrupt, and which, in his judgment, should reasonably be disqualifitatory about people wanting to get a night's sleep in order to do a day's work. We have had too much of that.
We had a very helpful intervention from the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who told us truthfully that they were carrying out a revolution. Some of us felt it very deeply. If anyone in some other sphere lives long enough to be able to observe and weigh the events of the century after 1945, perhaps in a century or two people will


know, first—what everybody must admit—how great were the disadvantages of the revolution and of carrying it out, which is true of all revolutions, and, secondly, perhaps people may in some eternity look down long enough to know whether it was worth it.
But they were carrying out a revolution and in rather odd circumstances. They were carrying out a revolution with a Parliamentary majority which was the result of a sort of khaki election in reverse. If they are entitled to be emotional, as the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) told us the other day—she said that we ought not to complain if they get over-facetious; whenever a matter concerning the Health Service, which touches them so deeply is raised, they naturally get excessively emotional—it was, perhaps, not unforgivable if there were some people on the Tory side who felt pretty emotional about the way two wars have been used—I dare say it is inevitable; it always should be so—as the petrol in the engine of Leftish progress and, as the right hon. Member for South Shields said, should feel pretty moved about the revolution that was taking place. I think that that is a help in understanding the argument.
Why is it that to people like me who detest Guillotines—and I genuinely detest them—this Guillotine seems rather more bearable than most Guillotines—[Laughter.] Hon. Members opposite need not laugh. Anybody who finds himself in such a predicament and finds the Guillotine bearable, will have great reason to congratulate himself. I find this Guillotine a little more bearable than most.
I want to say two or three things about it which I do not think have been said. First, we have had a good deal of talk—we had some from Southampton Water; I have forgotten the constituency—about how naughty the Tories were when they kept the Socialists up. The bit of that which is generally prayed in aid, again largely in reliance on Lord Boothby— I was then going to trespass, I think, on Privilege—the incident generally mainly used is the opposition to the Finance Bill —the Budget, and so on, in 1951, was it not?—the famous harrying——

Mr. K. Robinson: The "furniture" Prayers.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I am not talking about them. The thing generally quoted, I thought, is the famous harrying thing. Therefore, that is the one which I have looked up. As a matter of fact, there were not so many late nights in the month which that lasted as there were in the last three weeks of this February. The average lateness was much less. I think that there were only eight then to ten recently, and on that occasion, only once was the House kept up until six and only twice until two. I dislike very much, from all points of view—whether the active or the passive, the hammer or the anvil—keeping of people up late for party purposes.
Hon. Members opposite ought not to use that so much against us, especially when we consider what it was we were then opposing—Income Tax up by 6d., double Purchase Tax on a whole list of things, Profits Tax up from 30 per cent. to 50 per cent., petrol tax up 4½d. a gallon, entertainments tax raised for racing and cinemas—quite a considerable dog's breakfast of nastiness——

Mr. Robinson: If the hon. Gentleman consults his memory and the records, he will find that the famous "Boothby harriers" speech had nothing to do with the Finance Bill but referred to a number of prayers moved night after night by the late Sir Herbert Williams, at least one of which dealt with prices of furniture and another with the meat content in sausages.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I am sorry if I have the wrong incident, but it is one which is very frequently quoted as a very bad instance of obstruction by the Tories—that of the 1951 Finance Bill. It was not nearly as bad as what we are now used to.
I want to come to what seems to me the really characteristic difference between this occasion for the Guillotine and earlier occasions. The difference—I have lost my notes now; however, the argument will be quite clear in the end, I think. I should have hesitated to refer, or to refer more than perhaps very shortly, to the debate on the Ways and Means Motion in the House, if it had not been referred to with a good deal of emphasis by the Leader of the Opposition, and even with a good deal of pride. That is the clearest case—I say this with great hesitation and quite understanding


that I may be sounding priggish and inviting rebuke—of what seems to me to be the worst thing which has been happening to Parliamentary procedure in recent years, worse than the use of the Closure, which has been almost infinitely less under the Tories than under the Socialists—in six years they had the Closure 180 times—worse than the Closure and the Guillotine, which I agree is merely an elaborate form of Closure—what has done and is doing the House and its procedure far more harm is the immense development for purposes of putting people off their stroke or obstructing—I do not use the American word "filibustering"—the immense development of the use of what I hope it is not offensive to call the bogus point of order, and of what I hope it is not too offensive to call it the fraudulent supplementary question either at or immediately after Question Time, or by way of exchange across the Floor of the House.
If anyone looks at that debate he will see that it reads a little oddly. I agree that the essence of the work done in this House is government by discussion, and I care far more for that than I care for democracy. Parliamentary government was a great achievement, and it performed great achievements long before democracy ceased to be a term of abuse in this country. This is an institution which cannot stand still; it is no use thinking that it can produce a complete and absolute Parliamentary democracy and that it will go on spinning like a top on the same axis and on the same spot. It will not. Much the greatest danger to this institution recently has been this development of a certain kind of disorderliness.
When we look at that debate, which lasted about three hours, we find that practically every sentence which was continuous and followed by anything like another continuous sentence was uttered from the Opposition side. On that occasion, the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) made quite a good speech, in my judgment, anyway it was a reasonably longish speech with little or no interruption. So did his political friend who seconded him. In that debate before the moment when the Financial Secretary rose in the hope of making a speech to wind up the debate there had been—I think I have counted them correctly—about two dozen points of order in which I would bet hardly more than

two were in order and nearly half were consciously disorderly because they were in the form of, "Further to that point of order", when it had already been pronounced that the original point of order "was not a point of order.
The point on which I want to get the agreement of the House, if I can, is this. When to what the right hon. Member for South Shields called the normal machinery or ammunition—I will not say obstruction—of opposition and delay, used with extreme rigour—and hon. and right hon. Gentlemen have announced that it was going to be used with extreme rigour, when there is added the use of a device which in the strictest sense makes discussion impossible—if anyone reads this three hours' debate in HANSARD he will see that discussion was absolutely impossible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury was, if I may venture to say so, quite right in blotting out the technical distinction between what has taken time on the Resolution and on the Second Reading, and what on one Prayer or another and so on. Whatever the importance of those distinctions, the main part in this argument is this: adding up all the hours spent on this topic under various procedures, the House had been reduced to a condition in which no Government could any longer have delayed moving an Allocation of Time Motion. If anyone has any doubts at all about that he need do no more than read that debate that was no debate, or whatever one likes to call it, in HANSARD, mark it with a cross every time someone says: "On a point of order", and with a red cross every time someone continues to pretend it was a point of order when obviously it was not.
I think that every candid person will agree with me that something ought to be done to try to get us back to orderly debate in this particular debate on health, which is a profoundly deeply moving subject. I think that any candid person who has any knowledge of our past or care for our future would agree with me that unless something generally effective is done about it, and in the long run is done with the consent of most on both sides of that House, the whole of this institution will develop in ways which we cannot predict but which will certainly be most harmful.

6.36 p.m.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn), who used to deal with history before he came to this House but who is very selective about his history when he addresses the House. One might have thought from his remarks that disorder happened only on the occasion when Health Service Bill charges were discussed.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I never said anything of the sort.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Gentleman referred to anyone reading HANSARD. When he reads HANSARD tomorrow he will judge his own selectivity. When he was speaking of what happened on the famous night which gave rise to all the uproar, he was, of course reading it; we were there and we lived in those moments of exasperation and outrage, when we had the Patronage Secretary coming to the Box—[Interruption.]
The hon. Member was protesting a little while ago about disorderly interruption and "phoney" points of order and the slimy supplementaries, all of which he indulges in from time to time, usually from a recumbent position. He is a difficult man to follow because his type of speaking is rather staccato and he hops from one thing to another with a remarkable degree of selectivity. We were there that night and we saw this situation. We were exasperated by it. We remember that the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was on his feet. The hon. Member probably has not noticed it in HANSARD, but in fact the Patronage Secretary stopped the Financial Secretary replying to the debate after an undertaking had been given that the Financial Secretary would reply to the debate.

Sir K. Pickthorn: I always feel slightly drunk after making a speech. The hon. Member says that hon. Members opposite were exasperated. They must have worked up their exasperation very quickly because within the first four minutes there were six obviously disorderly points of order.

Mr. Pannell: The hon. Member says that he feels slightly drunk following his speech.

Mr. Pickthorn: I am quite sober now.

Mr. Pannell: He reminds me of Gladstone who, when rebuking Disraeli, said that the right hon. Gentleman derived his inspiration from sources denied to Her Majesty's Government. The hon. Member seemed to wax very indignant because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said that Tories wanted to go to bed in order to earn money in the morning. He somehow thought that that was a deadly insult. I thought that everyone of us was elected to put this House first. This House cannot work unless there are 250 to 300 hon. Member's present. The idea that someone who gets up in the House, blows up and blows out, renders better service to the House than all those who staff the Committees in the morning seems to be rather an odd argument.
I thought that the hon. Gentleman made two curious remarks. What did he mean by his reference to the two world wars? He took us up on the point that it was a khaki election in reverse which allowed us to usher in the Welfare State. Then, the hon. Member indicated the First World War as well. I somehow thought that it was his people, the hard-faced men, between 1918 and 1922 who were responsible for what happened after World War One. What did the hon. Member mean by that? Surely, there was no parallel between what happened after World War One and what happened after World War Two. It was simply the shocking example of what happened after World War One that made the electorate choose a Labour Government in 1945.
In the twenty years between the wars, there was never, on average, less than 1,700,000 people out of work and 6 million people permanently on the poverty line. That was a state of affairs to which people were not prepared to return. That is something that the Conservatives try to make the electorate forget. The reason why we were defeated was that a generation had grown up without the memories of what happened during that period. Now, people take full employment for granted.
I can remember what happened in those days. I remember the indictment in July, 1949. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) went down to Wolverhampton to make a speech about Weary


Willies and Tired Tims, and every effort taken by the Labour Government from 1945 to 1951 to set the country on its feet and to allow the £ to look the dollar in the face was sneered at by hon. Members opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Press."] And the Press. When hon. Members opposite got back into power, all the comedians and all the sneers about the Labour Government went off the air.
We remember, too, the speech of the former Member of this House who is now Lord Boothby. The hon. Member for Carlton repudiates it now, but, presumably, the gift of a peerage was within the hands of the Prime Minister.

Sir K. Pickthorn: That has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Pannell: Perhaps not, but in repudiating his hon. Friends, the hon. Member repudiates the bright star of television and radio who did so much for his side. Lord Boothby went down to Banstead—the nearest place he could get, I suppose, to a mental home—and said that he would harry us to death. What people do not appreciate was that he succeeded. I remember Fred Cobb, George Woods and Adam McKinlay, all of whom went through the Lobby once too often and died. I have no doubt that hon. Members opposite were far more expertly trained in night clubs than we were on night shifts. They harried us and we remember what happened at that time.
The hon. Member for Carlton is selective in his history as if, somehow, disorder happened only the other night. Of course, he tends to forget all history. One has only to refer to Mr. Asquith, who was no mean judge, who said that all the real rows and disorder in the House started long before the Labour Party was born. Mr. Asquith himself had the experience of standing at the Box for over an hour while the Tory rabble kicked up hell and did not allow him to speak. The hon. Member for Carlton has the sauce to suggest that disorder has only just occurred. Why, this place has become a well-mannered assembly since we have been here.

Miss Jennie Lee: Cissified.

Mr. Pannell: Almost pansified.
What did hon. Members opposite do when they got back to power in 1951? Some of my hon. Friends do not seem to appreciate what was the first piece of legislation that hon. Members opposite brought in. The first great denationalisation Measure which they introduced gave the brewers the right to have pubs in the new towns. It may be remembered that under the previous legislation, the joint planning committee and the local justices had to agree to a licence. It was necessary to repeal that requirement. Why did hon. Members opposite repeal it and why was it at that time that the representative of the brewers, the former hon. Member for Wokingham, was swopped on Standing Committee for the president of the Band of Hope Union? We all remember that.
I suggest that the answer was to be found in the Tory Party's war chest. The Tory Party never published its balance sheet, however, so that we could not know the figures. But how much did the Brewers' Society give to the Conservative Party war chest in 1951? Nobody knows. We all know that some figure was paid, but we do not know how much. It paid off at the time, but it was in spite of the fact that from 1945 to 1951 the party opposite campaigned to set the people free and to remove austerity. Its first effort at removing austerity was to set the brewers on the racket in the new towns, which had been built with public money. The hand of the brewers was at the helm. There is no question of where the interests of hon. Members opposite at that time were.
We appreciate that minorities have rights, but majorities must govern; and the Government must either have the "guts" to govern or the grace to get out. The rights of minorities, however, are not secondary considerations. We must consider the issues on which the arguments are founded. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) is not in his place, but he derided this sort of thing contemptuously by saying that the Bill was only a small one. He said that all that is being done is to increase the degree of imposition. That is a rather curious phrase. An imposition is something which one does not want to pay for anyway.
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely suggested that the Bill was only a small


one. I have already said—I stand to be shot at on this—that if I had to choose between full employment and cuts in the social services, I would certainly face that. But we are not speaking now in the context of 1949, when this sort of thing started, when the Conservatives were ringing out the cry not only for more social services, but for increased expenditure with lower taxation. We are dealing now with a period when the Conservatives have been in power for a great many years and when they claim that we have never had it so good.
The power to make a charge of Is. for an individual prescription is one thing, but since those days it has become a charge of ls. per item. We have had an increase in the charge during years of abundance. Now, we face a charge of 2s. per item. I can declare no personal interest in a Health Service debate except that I am one of the half dozen diabetics in the House. Nevertheless, I put this to the Minister.
There is not a single thing that the diabetic now needs, except insulin, for which it is worth while to go to the doctor. A diabetic can buy the cotton wool and the surgical spirit cheaply and he gets the needles three for that price. Even though a diabetic does not find it worth while to go to the doctor for a prescription for anything other than insulin, he is given a prescription containing four or five items at a time. The Minister of Health, who is on the lookout for anomalies in these matters, had better consider that.
I often hear references to this disease thrown over from one side of the House to another in a rather careless sort of way, and I hope that hon. Members will do their homework about it before they express opinions. I am one of those to whom no particular hardship is presented, but the facts which I have given to the Minister are such that he had better give them some thought. Difficulties may well occur for some people with other diseases who must have, not one or two, but three or four prescriptions at the same time. What I anticipate the result of that Bill will be is that people will again be very selective about the sort of things they take from the chemist.
Now we turn to the question of the priorities of this Government. In the

Queen's Speech there was mention of a road safety Bill. I think we are entitled to ask when we are going to have that and whether we are going to have it this Session, bearing in mind that the National Health Service Contributions Bill was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech at all. I should have thought that road safety was at least as important a matter as this, because 370,000 people will die or be injured on our roads in the next twelve months. I should not have thought that something the Government would wink at. It is a predictable problem.
Some of my hon. Friends march from Aldermaston and get very excited about the wrath to come, but we know, even although everyone hopes it will not happen, that as surely as the sun rises tomorrow people will die and be maimed upon the roads of our country. I should have thought that a matter of health just as much as this business, and the sum total of all those deaths on the roads is a greater loss to the national economy, and a far more savage loss than this sort of expenditure the Government are fiddling about trying to offset by means of the Contributions Bill.
If all this is so, why are we not having that Measure about road safety? I will tell. I will make an intelligent guess. It is because of a dispute between the Home Secretary and the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport, in his usual businessman's fashion, wants to have the breathaliser and all that sort of thing under the control of his Department. The Home Office does not want that. So there is a row between two Government Departments, and because of that we are now in the position in which we shall probably not get that Measure on the Statute Book this Session.
The Government had far better compose all their differences and get down to their proper job of work of carrying out what was forecast in the Queen's Speech instead of fiddling about with the things which they have no mandate at all. Nobody doubts that if the Government had come out candidly at the last Election and told the people that there would be a charge of 2s. per line and that there would be a poll tax of ls. per head the people would have had some pretty savage things to say about it. There is no question at all about that.
This is complete deception. The Home Secretary brings this forward in the nicest way. He is a very saponaceous performer. He always talks, especially in his perorations, as though the Lord were permanently at his side and as though everything he says were revealed from above. He is fundamentally a very lazy man. He never does his stint in Committees upstairs like his Lobby fodder are expected to do. Whenever a question is asked in Committee there is a lot of thinking and turning round to civil servants because nobody can make any decision at all. He is far too busy at the Tory Party centre giving directives about the by-elections to get on with the legislation before the House. I think he is a pretty sloppy Leader of the House and that the sooner he finishes his liberalising holier-than-thou perorations the more likely we are to get such Bills as that about road safety. He would have us believe he is a great liberalising Home Secretary, but his performance never matches up to his perorations. We do not believe in him any more. An hon. Gentleman opposite was talking about arrogance and smugness. He must have been referring to the Home Secretary.
So I think we had and we have a right to object to that Bill. We have a right to object to the Bill because the Government have got their priorities wrong. We have a right to object to this Bill because the Government have no man- date for it, because the reasons for its being introduced are completely phoney, because it was not announced in the Queen's Speech, whereas things which were announced in the Queen's Speech, such as that Measure about road safety, have not been brought forward because of disputes between Ministers.
More than anything else we object to that Bill because we do recognise that this is a dismembering of the Welfare State. The Government started with it because, presumably, they thought they had to face a divided Opposition. They proceeded with a great deal of arrogance with that Bill. There is no question at all, as this Motion today indicates, that they have been brought up at the foothills to this adventure. There is no doubt at all that when the country comes, as it will, to realise what the Government are up to it will turn again to this party, and put us in. The reason why it put the Tory Party in is fundamentally that the boys

and girls who have grown up since did not know the nature of Conservatism in the 'thirties. But the Government are taking us back again to all that, and they are already talking about it in the Bow and Arrow Group, talking about charges for primary school education, and a great, regressive Budget.
There are young men in the party opposite who do not remember the 'thirties. They are, presumably, ready to take us back to disaster. The older men—they have been young men far too long—do remember the 'thirties, remember non-intervention, and perhaps they thought they might go quiet and slow, but things are overtaking them, and I have no doubt that the electorate will catch up with them, and that when the electorate does catch up with them the landslide of 1945 will be as chicken-feed compared with the support we shall have next time.

6.56 p.m.

Sir Hugh Linstead: We have all enjoyed the robust speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell). When some of the arrows of a rather prehistoric type which he was firing came over to this side of the House I began to wonder whether he was a recruit to the Bow and Arrow Group himself.
However, to anyone who has listened to this debate there may have been the feeling that a good deal of the discussion has been somewhat artificial, and just an exchange of Parliamentary comments between the two parties. Nothing would be farther from the truth than that, because there is a real Parliamentary purpose behind a debate of this kind. I could not help regretting that in the obviously deeply felt contribution which the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) made, he felt it was necessary to let off a few of the traditional Parliamentary blows. He talked about the Tories as the ruling class always doing this sort of thing. There came to my mind a comment Lord Shawcross once made:
We are the masters. …" —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd April, 1946; Vol. 421, c. 1231.]
now. At the time when he said that he was the Attorney-General.

Mr. C. Pannell: And you have made him chairman of the Press Commission.

Sir H. Linstead: A question which such a debate as this raises is the Parliamentary question of what are the Opposition to do within the limits of Parliamentary procedure when they find them- selves faced with some Government proposition which they feel must be prevented if it is humanly possible for it to be prevented from becoming law. That is a problem which is essentially a problem for the Opposition, but to some extent, of course, it is a problem faced by every back bencher in this House, because to some extent the Guillotine and the Closure are weapons of the Government of the day against Parliament as much as against the rights of the Opposition.
I do not think we have recognised clearly enough during this debate that Parliament has worked out in a very pragmatic way a series of rules which are to be adopted by the Opposition almost as a matter of course when they find themselves in a position such as that in which the Opposition find themselves at the moment. Those rules are perfectly well-known and accepted by both sides of the House. It is unfortunate that they have not come more clearly to the surface in the debate. As far as I can make out, there are six rules which the House provides for the use of the Opposition if they wish to obstruct as far as it is Parliamentarily possible any Measure put forward by the Government.
The first rule is that the Opposition must prolong the Second Reading debate as long as they possibly can. The Opposition try if they can to prolong it into an all-night sitting. The second rule is that they try to provoke the Government to move the Closure in order that hon. Members may say that the freedom of Parliamentary speech has been limited. The third rule is to try to get the Bill taken in Committee on the Floor of the House and not sent upstairs, because it is known that it can be a greater embarrassment to the Government on the Floor of the House since the Opposition can take up more time.
The fourth rule is that when the Bill goes to Committee as many Amendments as possible are tabled. The fifth rule is to discuss those Amendments for as long as possible. The sixth and final rule is

to force the Government, if possible, to apply the Closure or the Guillotine.

Mr. S. Silverman: So we have won.

Sir H. Linstead: I am glad to see that some of the older hands in the House know that these are the rules which apply and, as the hon. Member for Leeds, West said, we are now at the final stage. The great advantage of that final stage is that it enables the Opposition to attack as lightheartedly or as seriously as they wish the Patronage Secretary and the Leader of the House.
It seems to me that neither side of the House has cause for complaint about the situation as it is today. The question has been asked why the Closure was not moved upstairs. The question that goes with that is whether there has been obstruction upstairs. It is difficult to say what is obstruction. I would not use the word "obstruction" for the extremely delicate, clever, carefully organised debates that we have had in Standing Committee. I would pay a compliment to the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) for the way he conducted those debates. They represented not obstruction but a group of rather elderly ladies strolling sedately over a pedestrian crossing engaged in animated discussion.

Mr. Silverman: So right hon. Members opposite mow them down.

Sir H. Linstead: One cannot call it obstruction but nevertheless it is a very refined form of dignified delay.
Both sides of the House understand the procedure that is being adopted and that it is inevitable in a situation of this kind, when they find themselves up against a brick wall, that the Opposition should use these six rules to spend as much Parliamentary time as possible, to make their views known, and to embarrass the Government. But in the end, the Opposition find that the situation must be determined by the Guillotine or a series of Closures, and when that situation arrives I cannot see that hon. and right hon. Members opposite have a great deal to complain about.

7.4 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: The hon Member for Putney (Sir H. Lin-stead) has given his interpretation of


proceedings in Committee upstairs. In the debate it seems to me that hon. Members have agreed on two main points. One is the plea that we should get things in proportion and the second is the plea that we should return to orderly debate. I think that getting things in proportion was effectively and finally done by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who pointed out that we on this side of the House are engaged in resisting as far as we can a long-term counter-revolution planned and conducted with great skill by the party opposite over the last ten years.
As for orderliness of debate, that is indeed a proposition which is very attractive to me. The difficulty that we are in at present is that we are discussing two quite separate things at the same time in two separate Bills. According to the hon. Member for Putney, we have reached the final in a contest conducted in the six stages which he outlined. It is, of course, true that there is deadlock. The Leader of the House complained that he can obtain no guarantees from the Opposition, and I was glad to hear him saying it. The right hon. Gentleman says that, therefore, he has to use this machinery which was previously worked out for this purpose.
It is generally said on these occasions that democracy works only if we agree on fundamentals. Clearly on one of the fundamentals we are not agreed, and there is likely to be deadlock. But there is one thing on which I hope we agree, and that is that this place and its Parliamentary machinery provide the way in which the country ought to be governed and its problems ought to be sorted out. Both sides are in the position that if we fire our deterrent we may destroy that which we are attempting to defend. In other words, there comes a point where the Government of the day would have to devise another weapon if the technique of Parliamentary obstruction were carried a little further towards its logical conclusion.
This is what has happened in the past, as freedom of debate, as it once was, has been eroded by Closure, Guillotine and timetable. I said that this is one point that we have in common. I hope that this is the view of the party opposite and its Front Bench at the present time. It would be too kind of me to praise

the party opposite for having been those who built up this working Parliamentary democracy. We are always in favour of the extension and use to the full of the machinery of Government. The opposite view to that could be put, but I will not put it now.
When this battle is over, even if the Leader of the House comes to some kind of agreement with the Opposition Front Bench he cannot guarantee that all Government business will now go smoothly for the rest of the Session— because there are some things which the Opposition Front Bench is not in a position to trade in. This was the essential point behind what was called a breach of agreement in the course of these debates when a debate did not cease at midnight but went on. It was the feeling of some of us that the question of private Members' time on the Consolidated Fund Bill could not be part of a deal between the two Front Benches.
There is a seventh rule which the hon. Member for Putney did not mention. This rule for any Parliamentary Opposition is to read the Order Paper. You will be uneasily aware, Mr. Speaker, that I try to find it possible to relate the business of the day to my constituency and sometimes I have to be guided in order that discussions of these problems can be kept strictly within the framework of the Motion before the House. But this is the position that an hon. Member finds himself in, and how frustrating and exasperating it is to find oneself spending a day, as we are now doing, in a discussion which could have been devoted to a more profound examination of the problems before us. Like other back-benchers, I have to find a way to raise prblems that present themselves to me which seem to me to show the symptoms of a social disease that may break out in the future. I have to present them on such occasions as I can find by following the seventh rule which is, as I have said, to read the Order Paper. What I should much prefer to see is a co-ordinated discussion of the social problems of the country.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Sir S. Summers) gave us details of the hours spent during these debates. I believe he spoke of eighty-four hours and 200 or so speeches. But the exasperating thing is that we have been discussing


two things at one and the same moment. I happen to be on the Standing Committee also, and so I can compare the Committee stages of the National Health Service Contributions Bill and of the National Health Service Bill. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury has freely admitted that one of these Measures is a budgetary operation intended to impose a poll tax. The hon. Gentleman has never attempted to obstruct the discussion, and he has never referred to the discussion as in any way time-wasting. He has taken up with the greatest courtesy, as he always does, all the points that have been raised. He has been willing to discuss and explain hypothecated taxation and the elements of poll tax in the Government's policy.
But how much better it would have been if the Leader of the House had paid more attention to the suggestions which I made to him in the course of last Session and to which he responded with a certain courtesy—the suggestion that we should have some co-ordinated debates on the development of the country's social services. I submitted the proposition that it would be sensible if we had each Session a "social survey" introduced by the Home Secretary as the co-ordinator of different aspects——

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the difficulties of the hon. Member, but I think that at this point he is obliged to read the Order Paper.

Mr. Parkin: I am endeavouring, Mr. Speaker, to reply to the remarks of the hon. Member for Aylesbury, who seemed to be indicating that we had spent more than adequate time on the discussion of these Measures. The hon. Member seemed to be implying that that time could have been more usefully employed. The hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) was also making a plea for orderly debate. I am also making a plea for the sort of orderly debate which could have been arranged within the framework of all these hours and days which have been spent on a process which almost appears to be a deliberate entanglement of two different propositions.
The Minister of Health, in his treatment of this subject, has at every point insisted that the Measure concerned is for the benefit of the Health Service. At

each point he has said that this is the better way of dealing with whatever it may be—dentures, consultations, prescriptions or whatever charges they may have been. He has tried to show us that the needs of the Health Service itself could best be met in this way.
This is the theme of the National Health Service Bill, a discussion of which is on today's Order Paper. It is referred to in the Motion. At the same time we have a parallel debate, a discussion of a budgetary proposition which seems to my hon. Friends and myself to be connected with a long-term shift in the weight of taxation, a counterrevolution against the attempt of the Labour Government after the war to redistribute income favourably towards the poorer element through the functioning of the Welfare State.
It may well be that that is a good policy, but it has never been discussed as such. We have never had an opportunity to discuss in isolation, as it were, the grand design of the Conservative Party for the welfare services of the future. If the Conservative Party were able to say that its budgetary policy for the shift of income was as I have described it, or if it were able to argue—we should be glad to listen—that the method of redistribution advocated before the war and attempted by the Labour Party after the war was neither just nor effective and had not had the effect that was foreseen in redistribution, that would at least be an argument which was worth listening to, but it is never put in relation to a coherent and continuous policy on behalf of the Government——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have given the hon. Gentleman as much licence as I properly can. I must now ask him to relate his observations to the Allocation of Time Motion or the Amendment.

Mr. Parkin: I am sorry if I have not made myself clear, Mr. Speaker, I had no other object in my speech than to discuss the proper allocation of time.
We have been reproached for the fact that, although a great deal of time has been made available for the discussion of these two Measures, we are complaining that it is inadequate, and it is said that we ought to have made it adequate. I suggest that the debate has ranged


widely over the technique of Parliamentary obstruction and the question of what happens if this procedure has to be attempted again and again. It is perhaps fair to mention again that the Government have lost a day on the Floor of the House which they might have devoted to other business—which is unfortunate—because the Guillotine Motion has been brought before us today.
I am speaking now as one of the back benchers who will be reading the Order Paper, because that is all that we are able to do in face of the Government's attitude. It is the only way we have of raising our own criticisms and grievances, whatever the Opposition may agree officially in relation to the Government's own policy. Much of the guerilla warfare could be avoided or be made much more sensible and constructive if the Government could so arrange their business as to give us an honest picture at the beginning of the Session, saying what they want, and why.
I submit that we have here two separate issues and two separate Bills. One is concerned with a poll tax and redistribution of income, as the Financial Secretary has been very willing to admit during our discussions. The other purports to be concerned with the efficient operation of the Health Service. They ought not to be discussed together. They ought not to be presented together out of the blue—without notice in the Queen's Speech—as if they were completely connected, unless the Government wish it to be clearly understood that they are dismembering the social services. If the Government are not doing so and have a plan of their own for reviewing different aspects of the Welfare State along the lines that were built into the National Insurance Act with its quinquennial review, they ought to make it clear in a calm and impartial debate which is concerned with the broad sweep of events, and not leave it until we get tangled up, as we have done on this occasion, in bitterness, hostility, confusion and deadlock which can do no good either to the institution of Parliament or to the operation of the Government's programme.

7.18 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: I wish to touch on two matters which have been mentioned during the

debate. A good deal has been said about what happened in 1951. The Opposition have tried to draw a comparison between what happened then and what is happening now and to justify their present tactics by what they claim were the tactics of the Conservative Party when it was in opposition. They are, in effect, arguing that this is a sort of tit for tat—not a very noble argument, but, nevertheless, one which I shall try to answer.
At that time the position was entirely different from what it is now. There are a number of hon. Members in the House at the present time who will remember vividly what happened in 1951. At that time there was a Labour majority of six of seven. There was also a very serious financial situation developing. There was a rapid increase in inflation, and very great anxiety was felt throughout the country. There was a great demand for action to be taken.
At that time the Labour Government were proceeding with measures such as the Highways (Provision of Cattle-Grids) Act, the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act, and a number of other similar measures, which were, perhaps, of great interest to those whom they directly affected, and were, maybe, of importance, but were, nevertheless, not in any way directed to dealing with a situation which everyone recognised needed to be dealt with urgently.
It was not because of what the Labour Government were doing but because of what they were not doing that the Opposition were driven to take action in order to try to bring to the attention of the country the utter inertia of the Government. We were—and let us state this frankly—demanding a General Election, and the Labour Government knew perfectly well that as soon as that election came about they would be out of office—although they did not know then that they would be out for ten years, and perhaps for twice as long as that.
In those circumstances we were, not unnaturally, inclined to be obstreperous with the Government. But when I consider the degree of obstreperosity—my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pick-thorn) has referred to the incredibly small extent to which we kept the House up late, and the short period during which we did it—I stand like a greater man than I astonished at my own moderation.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman ascribe greater virtue to an Opposition attacking a Government for what they are not doing than to an Opposition attacking a Government for what they are doing?

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: When a Government are taking action, it is right and proper for the Opposition to criticise that action, but when a Government are taking no action, as was the case with the Labour Government, then the Opposition cannot criticise the Government's action because there is nothing of it to criticise. It is then driven to the sort of activity complained about in 1951. The circumstances were wholly different, and there is no comparison between what happened then and today's situation.
The Leader of the Opposition put the issue in this way: he said that the Guillotine is only permissible in the case of an important and urgent Bill, when the delay would have serious consequences for the nation. That was the burden of his argument. He contended from that that this Motion was not justified. That argument is complete nonsense. It stands self-condemned as nonsense.
If it were valid, it would mean that every Bill not both urgent and important could be ruthlessly held up by any Opposition and not allowed to get through at all merely because it was of a controversial type. I do not think the right hon. Gentleman could have wished to put his case as high as that. In addition, by holding up minor legislation, the Opposition could hold up the whole legislative programme of the Government.
Things have been said by Members opposite in the last week or two which clearly show that they have it—or had it—in mind that by their actions they intended to hold up the whole legislative programme of the Government. In the discussion on the Consolidated Fund Bill, we were not concerned in any way with the particular matters to which the Opposition are taking objection in the two Measures mentioned in this Motion. They were merely seeking generally to hold up the Government's programme. What the Government are now doing is no less than what They must do—ensure that the programme that they believe to be the right one is carried out in spite

of opposition, and in spite of excessive opposition.
Apart from that, it is justifiable to ask whether this particular legislation is important. I would not like to say very much about its urgency in this context. I do not think that urgency is a matter we have to consider very much today. But I make a comparison here. In 1947 the Labour Government brought in a Guillotine Motion for the Transport Act and the Town and Country Planning Act. I was a member of the Standing Committee on the latter Bill and remember its proceedings extremely well.
We had had four days in that Committee. It was a Bill of immense length and we had made quite a bit of progress. On the last day before the Guillotine Motion was put down the Committee rose early, on the Motion of the Minister, for the convenience of members of the Labour Party who wished to go somewhere else. Not a single Closure had been moved in that Committee, and there was no suggestion of urgency. The Guillotine Motion was utterly irrelevant to that Committee's proceedings.
My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) has clearly stated the dilemma of the Leader of the Opposition. The right hon. Gentleman must make up his mind. is the National Health Service Bill important or is it not? He cannot have it both ways. He argues that it is a trifling and mean measure, and then says that it is of great importance, affecting everybody in the country, and something about which everyone should have their arguments ad lib. That is nonsense. This is an important Measure.

Mr. K. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman is misrepresenting my right hon. Friend, who said that these were wretched little Bills—and both of those epithets are true. They are little Bills because one has only two Clauses and the other only five. My right hon. Friend said that they were important Bills because they affected a large number of people. There is nothing contradictory in those statements.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: I am glad to have the right hon. Gentleman's hon.


Friend telling us that these are important Bills. I think the hon. Member will agree that they must form a substantial part of the Government's legislative programme and that the Government are entitled to see them passed without undue obstruction. At any rate, we have made that much progress.
Is the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) saying that the question of whether there should be a Guillotine or not depends on the length of the Measure concerned? Does he not know that about 100 Amendments, in his name and the names of his hon. Friends, have been put down to the National Health Service Bill? If only half or a quarter of those Amendments are selected by the Chair, it will be possible to hold up discussion of the Bill for days on end, wrecking the Government's whole programme.
The Government are fully justified in moving this Motion. The question of when such a Motion may be put down must depend on whether the Opposition show undue obstruction to a measure and to others with a view to holding them up, I am satisfied that the case for the Motion is proved over and over again. No member opposite has even attempted to disprove it. I hope that the passing of this Motion will be a sign that the Government do not intend to have their programme spoilt by quite unnecessary opposition.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The hon. Baronet the Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth) began his speech with his version of the events which took place in 1951. Those events were not, I think, connected with any Guillotine Motion, and therefore I do not propose to dwell upon them for more than a sentence or two, but out of courtesy to his argument, may I summarise it for him?
He said that in 1951, there then being a Labour Government and a Conservative Opposition, the Conservative Opposition thought that they were a very bad Government and that the proper thing to do was to turn them out as quickly as possible, especially in that there was some prospect of defeating them at the General Election.
They thought that as the Government had a majority of only seven, it might be easy by a variety of Parliamentary manœuvres to harry them, worry them, make life difficult for them, obstruct their business and do everything in their power to make it impossible for them to carry on.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Sir H. Lucas-Tooth rose——

Mr. Silverman: I will give way to the hon. Member in a moment but I hope that he will not be in a hurry to contradict my summary of his argument, because, before I give way to him, I want to say that I thought that it was a fair argument and that I see no objection to it at all, if the Conservative Opposition were inspired by those motives. The hon. Member as he then was, but Lord Boothby as he now is, made it clear what his intention was; and he organised it with great diligence, great skill and ultimately with complete success.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: The hon. Member did not quite make my argument correctly. I said that the then Government had a majority of only seven and that, owing to the smallness of their majority, they were failing to introduce legislation which they should have introduced and therefore we were not able to discuss the things which we should have discussed.

Mr. Silverman: It was for that, among a number of other reasons, which the hon. Baronet gave, that they thought that they were entitled to harry the Government and to use every legitimate Parliamentary weapon at their disposal, because they thought that it was a thoroughly bad Government and an unrepresentative Government, and they wanted to defeat the Government at a General Election as quickly as possible. I will make one concession to the hon. Member's intervention. He did not say that the fact that the Government had a majority of only six or seven made it easier for the Opposition to do it than it is for us today, when the Government have a majority of a hundred, but I am sure that he will not expect me to believe, and he did not say and I am sure that he would not say, that that consideration was wholly absent from the mind of the Opposition at that time.
It is quite right. There is nothing wrong with it. We think that this Government are a very much worse Government than the Labour Government of 1951. The hon. Baronet will not be surprised to hear me say so. By parity of reasoning with his own argument, the Government have no manner of objection to anything we have done in the course of the passage of these two Measures so far. I do not know what it is that the hon. Baronet complains about, or why he does not propose to come with us in the Lobby on the Guillotine Motion tonight in defence of his own argument. I do not say that I expect to see him there, but I live in hope.

Sir S. Summers: The hon. Member said that the tactics of the Opposition were reasonable at that time. Those tactics led straight to the Guillotine Motions of that day. As it follows that the tactics of the present Opposition lead equally clearly to the Motion on the Order Paper, on his own reasoning he ought not to complain about it.

Mr. Silverman: I hope that the hon. Member will not accuse me a second time of ill manners if I say that he must do his homework before he takes part in debates of this kind. There were no Guillotine Motions in the Parliament of 1950–51. Whether the Government of that day would have liked to introduce them is not for me to say. Whether it was necessary for them to introduce them, again is not for me to say. But it is obvious from the arithmetic that they could not have introduced a Guillotine Motion and have hoped to succeed by it. There was no Guillotine Motion in that period. The parallels which the hon. Member has sought to draw were not parallels between 1950–51 and 1960–61. They are parallels between 1947 or 1948 or 1949 and the present day. Those were the days when, once or twice, we had Guillotine Motions. I will contrast—not compare, as hon. Members have said—the use of the Guillotine on the two sides in a moment, with particular reference to the Motion before us.
A little while ago I heard my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) make a very frank speech, full of common sense. I agree entirely with him that a good deal of nonsense is talked on both sides of the

House on these occasions. There is a certain amount of common form about it. Every Government who introduce a Guillotine think that they are bound to do so in the interests of Parliamentary democracy. Every Opposition think that they are bound to oppose it in the interests of Parliamentary democracy. But because the two parties, when their positions change in the House, are apt to approach the question of the Guillotine with this kind of defence or this kind of attack, it would be a great mistake to draw the conclusion that all Guillotine Motions are alike, that they all have equal merit, that they are all equally blameworthy and that there is no distinction whatever to be drawn between some Guillotine Motions and others.
Nobody has ever denied that a Guillotine Motion, like the Closure, like a timetable Motion, is a legitimate Parliamentary weapon to use. Sometimes it is the only weapon which a Government can use in order to carry out their fundamental, basic duty of governing—because that is what Governments are for—against an active or fractious or obstructive Opposition. Certainly there are occasions on which it is justified and on which the Government are entitled to say, "We have a majority here, we have retained the confidence of that majority, and, while we retain it, we will do what we have to do to make sure that we get our way". When we are the Government, undoubtedly we shall do the same.
But having a giant's strength is one thing and using it like a giant is quite another. The point is that a Guillotine Motion must be justified on its own merits in the context of the Parliamentary situation which it is introduced to meet.

Mr. E. Shinwell: My hon. Friend is making a good point of great substance. If it could be argued that the opposition by the Labour Party had been of a frivolous character, I could understand the Motion, but surely nobody suggests that the opposition to the National Health Service Bill is of a frivolous character.

Mr. Silverman: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. I shall examine the Parliamentary situation from just that point of view to see what justification,


if any, there is for the use of the Guillotine on this occasion. It is useless to say "Oh, well, you did it when you were in power", unless one is prepared to go further and to say that the Labour Government of those days used it as unnecessarily as it is being used—as I contend—on this occasion.
I do not mean any disrespect to any of the other supporters of the Motion, but it will not be regarded as unfair if I direct my argument to that argument which the Leader of the House addressed to the House when he moved the Motion, and if I see what substance there was in his case. Most surprisingly, he began as his first reason by complaining that the House was not making enough progress with these Bills.
With the greatest respect in the world, I think that was an astonishing thing to say. On the last occasion when either of these Measures was in Committee, the Leader of the House himself intervened at about 4.15 a.m. in order to move, "That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again". He was supported by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition.
I opposed that Motion. I pointed out that it was still only four o'clock and that we had all night before us. True, the corridors and Committee Rooms were littered with the bodies of Tory deadbeats, but that only enabled us to get on faster. They were not interfering and they turned up at the right time when the Division bells rang—[HON. MEMBERS: "Most of them."]— I think that they all turned up. They were in complete ignorance of what the Division was about and a little doubtful about which Lobby to go into, but they knew that they wanted to support the Government and when the Patronage Secretary and his minions were there to guide them, they went into the right Division Lobby and shuffled through and went back to bed.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sir Edward Boyle): The hon. Gentleman will agree that points of order about the sleeping Tories occupied a full forty minutes. It is a slight exaggeration to say that they hastened the speed of the debate.

Mr. Silverman: The points of order were not about the sleeping Tories. We

believed in letting sleeping Tories lie. The points of order were about the way they littered up the place and prevented more active Members from carrying on with their duties in the conference rooms and libraries and other places appointed for them. Indeed, if they had decided to order a fleet of taxis and drive home and continue their sleep comfortably at home, the Committee would have gone on quite happily without them.
The point is that there was plenty of time, and when I asked the right hon. Gentleman why he did not get Clause 2 and leave the Schedule to be dealt with later, he resisted my suggestion, saying that there was no hurry. He said that there was plenty of time and that we could take up the matter when we were fresher. There was no indication that he thought that we were taking too much time. I was offering him further time that very night, suggesting that we should get Clause 2 and even part of the Schedule.
I am not saying that he was wrong, but he must have been wrong if he then had it in mind to move a Guillotine Motion before ever we came back to Clause 2, because what he did on that night was completely inconsistent with the case he made today when he said that his first reason for wanting this Guillotine Motion was that we were taking too much time and going too slowly. We would have gone much faster and he would have had more of his Bill that night if he had not moved the Motion which he then moved. There was no urgency and no waste of time or misuse of Parliamentary methods, according to his case then.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: On that argument, if my right hon. Friend had not moved to report Progress, the Committee could have sat for another three weeks and got the Bill right through. There must be a limit on the time. How often should we have to sit until four o'clock before there is any need for a Guillotine Motion? Will the hon. Gentleman particularise?

Mr. S. Silverman: I am sorry not to be clear and it must be my fault. What I was trying to point out was that we were already staying up and it was then four o'clock and that if we had sat up


for another three hours, we would have got Clause 2 and, may be, part of the Schedule, and that if we did not get it, it was because the Leader of the House moved to report Progress. What I am saying is not that the right hon. Gentleman was wrong then and not necessarily that he is wrong now, but that he must have been wrong then unless he is wrong now. He cannot use the argument that on one occasion we will not continue because we are getting on fast enough, and then on the next occasion say that we have to have a Guillotine Motion because we are not getting on fast enough. I am sure that if the hon. Baronet will make the effort, he will be able to follow that argument.

Mr. Raymond Gower: The hon. Member has related to the House how on that occasion he himself intervened to suggest that the Committee might possibly get Clause 2. Apart from his own statement, what evidence is there that we were even remotely likely to get that Clause?

Mr. Silverman: I am not saying for a moment that we could possibly have got the Bill on that single occasion, the Schedule and all the Amendments as well. I have not said that, but I hope that it does not require a great deal of evidence to persuade the hon. Member that if we had sat until seven o'clock instead of stopping at four o'clock, in the succeeding three hours we might have been able to get a little more of the Bill. That is all I am saying and I should have thought that that was an argument which, without distinction of party, might be generally acceptable to the House of Commons.

Sir H. Lucas-Tooth: Will the hon. Gentleman explain how, if at any time the Leader of the House moved to report Progress, that argument cannot be used? In other words, is it not his argument that once a Committee stage has been begun, we can never have a Guillotine Motion?

Mr. Silverman: I am afraid that this time the stupidity is mine. I cannot follow the point of that. I thought that I was making a perfectly simple case which was non-controversial and which was merely that if we go on three hours longer, we do a little more. That is all

I am saying. Is there anything wrong with that?
What I am saying is that the fact that we did not get any further on the last occasion was due to the intervention of the Leader of the House, who threatened to use his majority because we were going too fast. That is what it amounted to. "Let us stop now," he said. He said that there was no need to go on and get Clause 2, that there was no urgency, no hurry, that there was plenty of time. He even persuaded me, because I did not divide the Committee against it. We all went home believing that we were to have another day.
However, in the meantime the Leader of the House changed his mind and decided that, whereas in the middle of the night he had thought that we were getting on reasonably fast, when he had time to think it over, it turned out that we were not getting on fast enough, and so he would not give us another opportunity, and he introduced this Motion.
What I am saying is that the conduct of the Leader of the House on those two occasions, contrasted the one with the other, destroys any claim of urgency in support of the Motion. He may have other and better reasons and I will examine those in turn, but it does not lie in the mouth of the right hon. Gentleman to speak of urgency or slow progress.
His second argument was urgency in another sense—the absolute necessity of getting through before the Budget. Stamps had to be printed. The Government wanted to begin on 3rd July. How in the world were we to know that they wanted to begin on 3rd July? The right hon. Gentlemen did not explain. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, the Bill contains no reference to the date of commencement. There is no mention of 3rd July. It could be 3rd August, or 3rd December. The Bill gives an absolutely unfettered discretion to the Treasury to decide the operative day.
Surely the House sees that the argument linking these Bills with the Budget is an argument for delaying it and not hurrying it. Much as hon. Members opposite try to deny it, it was conceded throughout the debate by Members on the Front Bench; the Financial Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the Minister of Health—all those best


qualified to judge—that what they were dealing with was taxation, and not charges, or a premium, or an insurance payment. It was a poll tax.
If, at Question time, we ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer, or any Minister, about his intentions with regard to forthcoming taxation, he always tells us that he cannot anticipate the Budget. In other words, the Chancellor of the Exchequer wants to present a complete Budget so that it can be judged as a whole rather than dealt with by way of piecemeal proposals throughout the Parliamentary year. It irritates many of us who allow our curiosity to outrun our discretion when we receive such an answer, but on reflection we all agree that if taxation is going to be interfered with it is a very good thing to present the whole picture together.
Is not that what the Government have always maintained to be the proper way of proceeding? In that case, why was the Budget anticipated on this occasion? Why impose this tax in advance of the Budget without our being able to compare it with the other fiscal proposals? Whether a tax, or an alteration in a tax, is a good or a bad thing will often depend not upon its merits alone but on its merits as compared with those of other alterations which the Chancellor proposes to make or refuse to make. It would make some difference to the argument if we knew what the Chancellor was going to do about Surtax or Income Tax in the Budget. It is quite clear that he wants to get these Bills through before the Budget because he knows that there can then be no equitable comparison between the charges he is imposing by these Measures and the reliefs he intends to give to other people in the Budget.
That is not a good reason for getting these Bills through before the Budget. It is a bad reason. If the hon. Member or his right hon. Friend wants to parade up and down like a kind of inverted Robin Hood—robbing the poor to pay the rich—he should do it openly and wait until it is time for his Budget, when he can introduce all the proposals together so that we can see what he is up to. The argument about timing it to get it through before the Budget is an argument against and not in favour of the Motion.
His other reason was that it was much better for the Government to use the

Guillotine Motion now than it was for the Labour Government to use it between 1945 and 1950. That is the flimsiest argument of all. Hon. Members opposite have made some play with my right hon. Friend's description of the Bills as being, on the one hand, miserable little Bills and, on the other, Bills that would do a lot of harm. It is a miserable thing to steal the pennies from a blind man's tin, but it is a very serious thing to the blind man. There is no discrepancy between the arguments. This is a wretched, pitiable, miserable little method of filching pennies out of the pockets of people who cannot afford to pay them, in order to provide funds with which to relieve people who do not need to be relieved. It is quite possible to have miserable little Bills doing a great deal of social mischief. That is what I understood my right hon. Friend to be saying, and it is a perfectly good argument.
On every occasion on which the Labour Government introduced a Guillotine Motion they did so in order to get through the House Measures which they had previously put to the country in a General Election and for which they had received the authority of the electorate. If use is made of the Guillotine procedure it should be in respect of something which the electorate has already sanctioned, at least in principle. It is a very different thing to use the large majority obtained by pretending that one is not going to do something in order to do the thing that one has promised not to do. That is cheating. It is not in the service of democracy, and it is not enhancing the prestige of the representative Parliamentary system.
It is a bad thing to get power by force and to maintain it by force, but to get it by fraud and to maintain it by false pretences is a much more serious and tragic attack on the principle of democracy.

Mr. Gower: A moment ago the hon. Member said that these were tax Bills. He went on to complain shortly afterwards that this proposal should have been put to the electorate. The two things do not go together. The proposals of any Chancellor are never known to the House of Commons, let alone to the electorate. I am merely pointing


out the inconsistency in the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Silverman: I do not think that there is any inconsistency in it. If the empty threat which is being bruited about in newspapers about a General Election in the autumn were to come true, and if the Government intended to reduce Income Tax by 5s. in the £ not in the 1961 but in the 1962 Budget, they would not hesitate to make that proposal known in their election manifesto. When they intended to double the prescription charges and to increase the contributions, in the form of a tax, there was similarly nothing to prevent them from putting it into their election manifesto and saying, "You have never had it so good; see what will happen to you after you have elected us."
On every ground this is one of the most unjustifiable uses of a piece of legitimate Parliamentary procedure, which should be used only rarely and on proper grounds, that I have experienced in the House of Commons. The Leader of the House should be ashamed if it, but he does so many things that he should be ashamed of but is not that I express absolutely no confidence that we shall sue him rise in a white sheet or make a confession of sin before the end of the debate. I hope that those who care for Parliament and for our institutions will join us in the Division Lobby at ten o'clock.

8.0 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: When I came to the House this evening I had no intention of taking part in the debate, but as time has passed I have become convinced that those of us who had experience of the Parliament of 1945–50 should tell something of our experiences of those days and make a small contribution to the debate.
I do not intend to follow the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), but I agree with his statement that a timetable must be justified in its own context on the merits of the case. That is fundamental and essential. A timetable is not welcomed by hon.

Members on either side of the House, but it is an essential weapon in the hands of the Government when the Opposition make it necessary to use it.
We have had very little experience of the Guillotine in recent years compared with our experiences in 1945–50. At that time major Bills were repeatedly guillotined. They were major Bills in every way. They were revolutionary Bills for this country. They changed nearly 20 per cent. of the business of this country from private enterprise to nationalised industry. That was a fundamental change.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Is it not the case that only three Bills were subjected to the Guillotine at that time?

Sir J. Barlow: I can assure the hon. and learned Gentleman that they were mighty Bills. They changed the commercial face of the country substantially. I remember only too well sitting for very long hours and then the Bills being subjected to the Guillotine at the end.
The Leader of the Opposition was not quite right in saying that the long hours we have been sitting in the past few weeks are welcomed in the country and are a sign that Parliament is doing its work. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne may be interested to know that I was in my constituency last Friday night and some people asked me in no uncertain terms, as they do in Lancashire, why we were sitting such late hours. They said that no business could be run in that way, with which I fully agreed.
There are two important considerations. First, is it an important Bill? Secondly, has there been undue obstruction? I believe that it is an important Bill for the Government to press on with. The Opposition think that it is an important Bill, so we are agreed about that. What we seem to be disagreed about is the necessity for applying this weapon for this Bill at present. Anyone reading with an open mind the debates we have had upon the Bill will have very little doubt that there is good reason for adopting a timetable for the Bill.
I will give one instance, apart altogether from the general abuse of points of order. I thoroughly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Carlton


(Sir K. Pickthorn) that, if hon. Members abuse the procedure of the House by taking bogus points of order, the whole atmosphere of the House will change, it will be thoroughly bad for the House as a whole, and both sides of the House will suffer. I do not know what the remedy is, but a remedy must be found. Bogus points of order will bring the House into disrepute in the course of time.

Dr. Barnett Stross: Dr. Barnett Stross (Stoke-on-Trent. Central) rose——

Sir J. Barlow: I want to continue, because I do not propose to go into the subject of points of order at great length. I want to refer to the point raised by the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Manuel) at 12.30 a.m. The hon. Member mentioned that some of the interview rooms were being used by recumbent sleepers. Points of order arising out of that initial point of order, which was a bogus one, carried on for 45 minutes to an hour. That was a deliberate attempt to hold up the business of the House of Commons.

Dr. Stross: Has the hon. Member looked at column 554, from which it appears that I, making the last real speech before the Financial Secretary was to have risen and answered, declared that I had difficulty in hearing. I said:
Then I heard correctly, in spite of the Patronage Secretary who was sitting behind the hon. Gentleman at the time."—[OFFICIAL. REPORT, 8th February, 1961; Vol. 633, c. 554.]
Does not the hon. Gentleman think that these "bogus points of order" were due, in part at least, to the fact that it was so apparent that the disturbance was first created by the Patronage Secretary, who was giving his orders in an audible voice whilst I was speaking and whilst the Financial Secretary was speaking?

Sir J. Barlow: No, I do not agree with the hon. Member. The point I am referring to was raised at 12.30 a.m. The Deputy-Chairman ruled it out of order, but in spite of that many other hon. Members raised further points of order on what was a bogus point of order to begin with. Both sides of the House must face that and deal with it. That sort of thing cannot go on indefinitely.
Near the end of his speech the Leader of the Opposition drew attention to what he said was one of the finest speeches he

had ever heard from the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), which was made at about five o'clock in the morning. I looked the speech up. The Leader of the Opposition seems to be two hours out in his timing, but at that time of the morning we could all be two hours out. I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman if he regards that speech as a good contribution to such a debate.
When Parliament discusses timetables it is remarkable that similar expressions and statements issue from the mouths of whoever are occupying the benches. I deplore timetables, but the timetable is an essential weapon in the hands of the Government, and it is undoubtedly being used rightly on the present occasion.

8.9 p.m.

Mr. Laurence Pavitt: I am rather sorry that the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) did not address himself a little more to the very cogent points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The hon. Member made a great deal of play with the procedure of the House and with what he describes as the obstructive attitude of the Opposition to the two Bills for which the Guillotine is being imposed. The hon. Member fails to realise how deeply incensed hon. Members on both sides of the House become when they feel that flagrant injustice is going on, especially when it is not the fault of the Chair, which is behaving perfectly correctly, but outside the Chamber unfair advantage is being taken of organisational arrangements which gives one side in the argument a little advantage over the other.
The hon. Member referred to the point of order about the interview rooms. We on this side felt that the Government Whips, perhaps by organising a shift system, had seen to it that while we were battling over every word of a Bill that we thought to be extremely important, hon. Members opposite were being organised on a shift system which enabled them to sleep downstairs and not really to participate to the full in the debate——

Sir J. Barlow: Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that that point of order


was not a bogus one and that there were not other ways of raising the matter?

Mr. Pavitt: I am trying to explain——

Mr. S. Silverman: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to intervene? I do not know whether the hon. Baronet was there, but while it is perfectly true that when the point of order was originally raised the occupant of the Chair was inclined to think that it was not a good point, after representations had been made to him, and after his attention had been drawn to a Standing Order which covered the precise point, he ruled in favour of the point of order, and steps were taken to put the matter right.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: And is it not the case that the occupant of the Chair sought the assistance of the Serjeant at Arms, who pursued inquiries into a situation that was then corrected?

Mr. Pavitt: If the hon. Baronet the Member for Middleton and Prestwich is correct, it is a reflection on the Chair, because the Chair took note of the point of order and the Serjeant at Arms took action.
I do not want to dwell on this matter, because far more important contributions have been made to this debate into whether or not the Government are justified in gagging the Opposition in their attempt to fight two Bills that they loathe and detest. Our opposition has a very good basis in our constituencies. We are getting a flood of letters, and our trade union branches are inviting us to explain the position to them. We are merely trying to put the point of view of our constituents to the Government to ensure that before these Measures are passed every aspect of them will have been considered, whether in relation to dentures of spectacles, or to the "poll-tax" financial measure of the Exchequer in relation to National Health contributions.
We have heard a good deal today about Parliamentary procedure. The hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich has said that people do not like the idea of Members doing an over-full day's work; of Members taking their duties so seriously that they feel it necessary, if need be, to sit here all night and

return again at 10.30 the following morning for Standing Committee work.
I very much resent the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) that it is perfectly right to treat this as a part-time job; that we are justified in undertaking other work and that this job of representing our constituents should take its place with other duties. He asked why hon. Members should not go out in the mornings to earn money. To many of us this is a full-time job. We are quite prepared to debate important issues, and we resent the Government's gagging Motion that will prevent us giving these Measures the attention we think that they deserve.
The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) described this as a kind of game with six rules. This is not a game to my hon. Friends. We are not playing a game of bridge, or chess with moves and countermoves; we are fighting in order that the health of the people shall be preserved. We do not believe that these Bills will do that but will operate entirely in the contrary direction. The National Health Service is facing the death of a thousand cuts, and we regret that the Guillotine is to be used as an additional means to secure further cuts in the Service and in the provisions originally brought in to safeguard the health of the nation.
The hon. Member for Putney suggested that we have now reached the final stage, but we have not. This legislation will be debated under the timetable. There is no doubt that we shall lose in the Division—and in spite of protestations from hon. Members opposite that none of them likes the Guillotine they will all vote for the Government—but we shall still have a limited amount of time in which to oppose these Bills.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) said that the Government were murdering Parliamentary democracy. The problem facing back benchers on both sides is that, increasingly, we have to look at Measures like this in the context of our Parliamentary year. Since this Government came into power in 1959 we have seen more and more power go to the Government and a more rubber-stamp attitude expected on the part of back benchers. This is yet another step by the Government to impose willy-nilly, their will on the House.
I have charged the Government previously with this, particularly on health matters. Today, there was a Parliamentary Question about the Cranbrook Report. The only way that that important Report can be discussed is for a Member to put a Question to the Minister and follow up with supplementary questions. We have had about fifty Reports on the Health Service, yet the only way in which we can get a debate is by keeping the Government up until the early hours of the morning. We therefore have to think not only of these two Bills but of the rights of back benchers on both sides to discuss and amend Bills.
One hon. Member opposite accused us of obstruction and spoke of the Consolidated Fund Bill which we debated into the small hours of the morning. The amazing thing there was that hon. Members opposite, who claim to be so keen on being watch-dogs of public expenditure, allowed the authorisation for the spending of £42 million, though very few of them knew exactly to what purpose's that money was to be put. except that it was a result of the Report of the Royal Commission on the pay of doctors and dentists. They knew little of the effect it would have on the Health Service; on how it would affect the relations between hospitals, local authorities and general practitioners; on how it would be used to improve relations between teaching hospitals and regional hospitals. The House only had a chance to discuss such questions when it debated the Consolidated Fund Bill, and during a brief debate on the Supplementary Estimates on 5th December. Inevitably, therefore, when faced with a Motion like this, we must protest to the maximum and seek to safeguard the rights of the back bencher to debate these very important issues.
A number of hon. Members opposite have made great play of the "You did it first" technique. I am getting a little tired of never hearing anything from them except references to debates in the years from 1945–1951. Whatever may be the issue, the only argument we get from the other side is, "Well, we have had three General Elections, and have won them in a row." They do that, instead of addressing themselves to basic arguments on the actual matter under discussion.
This Motion refers to two Bills. First, there is the "poll-tax" Bill, which is already being discussed in a Committee of the whole House, and has made some progress. No answer has been given to the reference by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne to the ham-fisted way in which the Government have 'handled the business of the House. In this Session we have seen Bills presented that were inaccurately drawn up. We have had Bills that we thought were on the Order Paper but which we have found later to have been withdrawn. In short, we have very little confidence that the Government are treating this House with the respect it deserves. Our opposition to the Measures presented by the Minister of Health has revealed a number of instances where the Government have been slipshod in the way they have dealt with their business. Particularly is this evident from the manner in which this Bill is being hurried through. It was not mentioned in the election manifesto of the Conservative party, nor was it mentioned in the Gracious Speech. Yet it suddenly becomes so vitally important that it has got to be forced through the House before we rise for Easter.
We have had no answer from the Government to the suggestion made by several of my hon. Friends that this "poll tax" Measure, this regressive legislation, as the Financial Secretary to the Treasury called it in a previous debate, is being pushed through all its stages to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer a clear run when he makes his Budget speech after the Easter recess.
We on these benches are concerned with the way in which this matter is being handled. I should like to pay a tribute to the way in which the Financial Secretary handled the National Health Service Contributions Bill in Committee. At no time did he seem to lose his temper. We are well aware of the iron fist in the velvet glove, but all the points which were raised were effectively dealt with by the Financial Secretary. At no time was he put out of countenance, and the sincerity with which we stated our arguments was met with equal sincerity on his part. That is the kind of thing that should happen, instead of the Government saying, "We will have a rigid timetable, irrespective of what stage the debate has reached".
I cannot agree with those hon. Members who have said that their Conservative friends do not like the way in which our business has been conducted in the last three weeks. It has been greatly welcomed in my constituency. It seems to us that the Government constantly try to play down the importance of Parliament and seek to take their decisions elsewhere, whereas we, believing in the importance of this assembly, try to bring everything on to the Floor of the House or into Standing Committee in order that the full light of debate and of argument may come into play. So far, this approach has been effective in our debates on the "poll tax" Bill on the Floor of the House and some useful contributions have been made.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Carlton said that he felt that the use of the Guillotine was not too bad in this instance. The reason is that in the three sittings of Standing Committee A there has been absolute silence from the Government side, except for the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary. I was under the impression that when a Bill is discussed in Committee both sides put their case, those in favour of the Bill stating why it is necessary and how best it can be put into operation, while those who are against the Bill state their reasons for their opposition. In the Standing Committee proceedings on the National Health Service Bill there are twenty hon. Members on the Government side, but they have worked a shift system. They send five in at a time, and all the burden and heat of argument rests with the Minister of Health and the Parliamentary Secretary.

Dr. Stross: We must not be unfair to those who face us in the Standing Committee. There was a contribution made by one hon. Member opposite—I believe it was the hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Sir M. Stoddart-Scott)—who declared that a charge of 5s. for dentures was only the price of a packet of cigarettes.

Mr. Pavitt: I thank my hon. Friend. I agree we did have that intervention at one time. Also I think the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. K. Lewis) made a short interjection of two sentences on one occasion.
If Parliamentary democracy is to work, the Committee stage of a Bill should carry greater weight than it is being allowed to do in this instance. To introduce a Guillotine Motion at this stage when we have had only three sittings makes one think that the Government must be very unsure of their case. They must be scared of the possibility of a searching debate in Committee, and of hon. Members on these benches having an opportunity of examining all the provisions in minute detail.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition pointed out, this is an important Bill, but an extremely small one. We are dealing only with dentures and spectacles. But, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne has pointed out, these are vital matters. I suppose that blindness is one of the greatest scourges that could happen to anybody. I believe it is one of the things that most of us fear. We see these inroads being made by the Minister of Health and his Department into the National Health Service, and naturally we want to give the Measure the most searching examination and to put forward constructive suggestions. Having failed to obtain reductions into these inroads, we have made suggestions on how the Minister can get out of the dilemma with which he is faced—at one and the same time to help his Department to prosper and to have a National Health Service worthy of the name, while on the other hand obeying the dictates of the Treasury which is demanding cuts in the Service at all costs.
This imposition of the Guillotine at this stage is ill-timed. The Government should have the courage to let the matter go on a bit further before seeking to impose the Guillotine, particularly as the Bill has had only three sittings in Committee. They are, in fact, running away from a situation which they themselves have created. They are bringing in a series of Measures which seek to destroy the National Health Service bit by bit. It is our task to preserve that structure, not only because of our historical connection with it and because we have sought to improve it constantly, but also because the welfare of the nation is at stake.
Our debate today has been concerned with Parliamentary democracy. Parliamentary democracy will be better pre- served if hon. Members opposite are prepared to let the full weight of argument and debate come into play rather than seeking to shelter behind this Parliamentary procedure of curtailing discussion.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I have not been present throughout the whole of the debate, but I have heard a great deal of it, and I should like to begin by referring to the speech of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). With his usual felicity of phrase, he advanced what appeared to be a quite strong argument, but there was really only one thing he said with which I could agree. He began by saying that each of these cases must be judged on its merits, and a Guillotine Motion, of course, depended on the particular circumstances. That is perfectly true. The House of Commons can work only by agreement, and our Parliamentary democracy could not exist at all unless there was a good deal of give and take between the two sides.
The Government of the day must recognise that the Opposition has a point of view and they are entitled to put it. Their intention and their point of view must be respected. On the other hand, the Opposition must recognise that the Government have a mandate to govern and they must get on with their job. It is not right that the Opposition should delay endlessly the business of the House by raising points of order.

Mr. S. Silverman: The hon. Gentleman will probably agree that the Government's case for their Guillotine Motion would be very much stronger if they really did have a mandate for it. Part of our case is that they have not, and they deliberately avoided seeking one.

Mr. Wilson: They have a mandate to govern the country.

Mr. Silverman: Not for this Bill.

Mr. Wilson: Not for this particular Bill because, in our view, it is merely an extension of something which already existed. I find it very difficult to understand why the Opposition have made such a fuss. To go from Is. to 2s. does

not raise a very important principle. One can only suppose that the Labour Party is so tied to slogans that it must find its position very awkward at the moment. It must be very unfortunate for the Labour Party to have to go on praising the nationalisation of all the means of production, distribution and exchange when no one cares a hang about it. If the Opposition can find a slogan which looks plausible, no doubt they are glad to use it and, on this occasion, to say that we are grinding the faces of the poor is easy and it looks as if it might have something to do with the Bill.
There are many other important events in the world. The Congo is going up in flames, Rhodesia is in trouble, and for us to spend hour after hour debating whether it should be ls. or 2s. seems to be taking matters to extremes.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne referred to the incident in the middle of the night when we spent the best part of an hour discussing points of order about whether someone was sleeping downstairs. He questioned the use of the word "bogus" applied to the original point of order. No doubt, the Chair did ask the Serjeant at Arms to inquire what was going on, and a report was made, but it will be within the recollection of hon. Members that the point as it was first put was that there were hon. Members downstairs preventing visitors talking to their Members of Parliament. I find it very difficult to suppose that there were many visitors wishing to speak with their Members of Parliament at that time of the morning. At any rate, there were several interview rooms which were empty. I think, therefore, that the word "bogus" with regard to those points of order had some justification.
We have spent a tremendous amount of time on these two Bills. It is high time we got on with them, and I think that my right hon. Friend is justified in bringing in his Guillotine Motion.

8.32 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) on one thing at least. He began by saying that he would


attempt to answer what had been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), though I hardly think that he lived up to his original boast. He claimed that one of the reasons for thinking that the National Health Service Bill was not of great importance was that it was merely the extension of something which existed. He regards the increase of a charge from ls. to 2s. as no more than the extension of something which exists. I wonder what he would think if the Government multiplied Income Tax on exactly the same scale. He would hardly regard that as merely the extension of something which existed which should not be debated in the House.
Despite his experience in the House, the hon. Gentleman does not seem to understand how the business is arranged. He talks about the Congo going up in flames and he refers to the importance of what is happening in Rhodesia. We could give him a very long list. It is not the Opposition who decide that those matters should not be more fully debated in the House. The Government do that. Nothing would have pleased us more if the Government had agreed that we could have an extensive debate on the Congo or a longer debate on Rhodesia than the one we have had.
Every Thursday for weeks, perhaps for months, my hon. Friends, after the Business has been announced, have drawn to the attention of the Leader of the House Motions on the Order Paper and they have asked for time for them. On every occasion, the Leader of the House has said that there is no time. There would have been time if these three Measures had not been introduced. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman must direct to the Leader of the House and not to the Opposition his complaints about the failure of the House to discuss many of the most important subjects which we would all wish to discuss. It is not our fault that these matters have not been debated much more fully.
During the debate it has been suggested by many hon. Members on both sides of the House—chiefly from that side but also hinted at from this side—that the arguments about the Guillotine are formal and trivial arguments which merely run

according to the pattern followed in all such debates and therefore we need not take much notice of the discussion which we are having. The pattern was set by the Leader of the House, who referred, as we all expected, to the previous occasions when the Guillotine was imposed. I suppose that the Home Office, or the Leader of the House, or whoever it may be, must have a file for occasions like this. Whenever a Guillotine Motion is proposed, they get out the old file and the old list of quotations, and they are trundled along here and read by the Leader of the House. [An HON. MEMBER: "And the Central Office."] Yes. I do not know whether the Central Office and the Home Office combine. No doubt they have similar files.
I am sure that we shall get more of this in the winding up speech. I hope that the Minister of Health, who is the real criminal in this matter, will wind up. If he does perhaps we will have something more original. The Leader of the House has treated the House in the most cursory fashion. I am sure that he did not write his speech. I would not charge him with that. I would not make such an accusation against him as to suggest that he wrote the speech which he read. It was obviously done for him, and was taken out of the pigeon-holes. That is the way in which the House is often treated in these Guillotine Motions.
I do not think that that is a proper way to deal with the matter, for two or three reasons. First, I should have thought that everyone who has had experience of it would agree that any debate conducted under the shadow of the Guillotine is a dead debate. When the proceedings take place all the life, fire and cross-examination which should be part of a Parliamentary debate is gone. No one will deny that. The reason for it is that every element of surprise is removed and every real possibility of putting pressure on the Minister is gone. The Minister has only to sit there and to get up at the regular time provided and read the brief with which he has been supplied by his Department. The debate goes ahead without it having the slightest effect whatever on the legislation before the House. This is what happens when the Guillotine operates. Nothing can be worse for the House of Commons than for it to sit day after day with it being


known in advance that the whole of the discussion will not have the slightest effect on the legislation passed during the proceedings.
It may be said by some hon. Members that this happens, not only when the Guillotine is operating, but on other occasions. No one could deny it. It is happening today. This Motion is not subject to the Guillotine, but no one would claim that it has been a real debate. The Leader of the House has not listenend to it. No one has attempted to answer the speeches of the Leader of the Opposition, my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Come or other of my hon. Friends who put forward a formidable argument about how the issue should apply to this Guillotine.
I think that it is extremely improbable that whoever replies for the Government will make any real effort to reply to the debate. The whole thing is regarded as a day lost because this is how a Guillotine Motion has to be put through. Therefore, the Government go through the motions. Not one hon. Member opposite would dare to get up and say that he thinks that any hon. Member on that side will be influenced by the merits of the argument in the debate. I think that that is a deplorable state of affairs for the House.

Mr. Gower: Is it not a fact that, when the late-night debates were taking place, hon. Members on this side were so impressed by the experience of the excessive delaying tactics of the Opposition that they have no desire to oppose the Motion.

Mr. Foot: That is not what I am arguing now. It may be that all hon. Members opposite were so outraged by what they saw in the House of Commons during the night of the debate that they came to the House absolutely resolved to vote for the Government anyhow. A much simpler explanation of why they came to the House today determined to vote for the Government would be that the Government had told them that they had to. Everyone knows that.
It is a fact that debates under the shadow of the Guillotine are the worst of all; but this happens frequently. Frequently in the House of Commons issues are not debated on their merits. The merits of the arguments have no

influence whatsoever on the result of the voting. Every hon. Member knows this. We are all agreeing to it, accepting it, and thinking that this is the right way for the House of Commons to conduct its affairs. I do not think that it is the right way for the House of Commons to conduct its affairs.
Many more issues ought to be decided on the Floor of the House than in other places where issues are decided. More and more, the Cabinet exerts its power over the House of Commons. That has been going on for years, but it is getting worse all the time. More and more committees outside the House of Commons decide the issues before they are brought to the House, and more and more we have this huge proliferation of committees, groups and meetings which go on in the House of Commons and which prevent, or impede, proper discussion on the Floor of the House. I do not believe that a single hon. Member would deny these charges.
It is a very serious state of affairs because if we go on in this fashion it will soon mean that it is commonly accepted that we do not have government by discussion in this country; that we have government by secret committee, with the Whips on, deciding all the issues that have to be decided. I think that there ought to be many more debates in this House with the Whips off. Whenever the Whips are off, the House is fuller. Why? Because people have to listen to the merits of the debates. Why should we not say these things. Why should we not do something about it? During the past few months that I have been in the House, I have seen vitally important debates conducted with only a handful of Members opposite and on this side of the House. Everyone knows that is true. Yet here we are supposed to be deciding issues. My complaint against what the Government are doing today is that they do not want to have real decision by the House of Commons.
The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health wrote a book recently about famous occasions in the House of Commons. It was a very good book in which he picked out through the centuries the great occasions when the House of Commons had become alive. Those occasions are getting fewer and fewer. No one is doing anything about it. I do not mean to say that we can do anything


about it merely by rejecting Motions like this one. I think that both sides of the House ought to examine very carefully the whole way in which the Whips operate, in which secret meetings decide the issues before they are brought to the House of Commons, and the way in which the real issues in which the country is rightly interested are decided outside the House of Commons instead of inside this House. Anyone concerned with real Parliamentary democracy ought to be interested in these matters.

Mr. Godfrey Lagden: I honestly believe at the moment that the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) is being carried away by his enthusiasm and that he is sincere. He advocates the Whips being off on more and more occasions. Can he tell the House how many three-line Whips there have been on his side during the last month, forcing his hon. Friends to be here as against the two-line and one-line Whips on this side?

Mr. Foot: If the hon. Member had listened he would know that my complaint is just as much against the Whips being operated by my own side as by his side. Indeed, very often I have bitter reasons against the Whips being operated on my own side. I am against the whole system of the Whips being operated by either side. The reason that I am against it is because tremendous battles had to be fought for great decisions made by Parliament to be taken in public. That is denied if the choice and the decision is removed from the House of Commons into secret meetings either of the Labour Party or of the 1922 Committee. Therefore, I am against the whole system. If we want to have real Parliamentary democracy, it is time that people started to argue about the real reasons why we get such apathy in this House. The hon. Member spoke about being carried away by enthusiasm. It is better to be carried away by enthusiasm than deadened by apathy and deadened by predetermined decisions. What is killing confidence in the House of Commons is pre-determined decisions whether pre-determined by the Cabinet or by the private party meetings of one side or the other, or by the whole apparatus of private meetings which are draining the life out of the House of Commons.
Let us try to get some life back into the House of Commons. That is why, among other reasons—there are plenty of other good reasons—I welcomed the attack made upon the Minister and the Government for these Measures which they are introducing. In the House of Commons, there must be an element of surprise. There must be an element of ambush, an element of being able to upset Government timetables. If Government timetables go through exactly as Governments want, there will be a kind of dictatorship by consent. Therefore, Government timetables ought to be liable to be upset every day of the Parliamentary week.
The Leader of the House ought to be spending all his time in the House of Commons. It is a full-time job being Leader of the British House of Commons, which is supposed to be the greatest House of Commons in the world. It is not something for the Leader of the House to do in his off moments when he has finished off his job elsewhere. It is a full-time job. He ought to be here, listening to what is happening, seeing whether he should be influenced by the debate. Instead of that, even on a Measure which is supposed to be concerned with the conduct of Parliament, the Leader of the House has other business—oh, he is here now. I am glad to see him, but he has not been here so very long. I have no doubt that he has a perfect excuse for being able to say, "I have had a lot of other business that had to be faced."
We all know that this Guillotine Motion was rushed through at the last moment. The Leader of the House did not know last week when it would happen. I suggest seriously that if he took the House of Commons a little more seriously, he would give up some of his other duties and be here much more often and try to see whether he could listen to some of the debates, to try to see whether the Government should be influenced by debates, as Governments should be.
Consider what has happened on these Measures. I have sat through most of the debates on the three Measures that the Minister of Health has introduced. During whole hours on end, we have had one speaker after another from this side, but none from the Government side. How has that happened? Has it been


done by telepathy? Has it happened because even the most garrulous of hon. Members opposite did not want to talk? No, it has happened because it suited the Government. It suited the Government to injure or suppress the debate. So the Government exerted their influence to try to prevent the House of Commons from doing its duty of trying to settle these great issues by discussion.

Mr. G. Wilson: The hon. Member chided me for not being familiar with the customs of the House. Would he not agree that the duty of an hon. Member who speaks is to keep his own House and that if he cannot be interesting enough for people to listen to him, it is his own fault?

Mr. Foot: There may be cases that come in that category, and it would be most unparliamentary of me to name them. I think the main reason why hon. Members attend the proceedings of this House only when they intend to speak themselves is precisely that they know that the debate will not influence the decision.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I point out to the hon. Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) that there are just about three or four times more hon. Members here listening to my hon. Friend than there were here when he spoke?

Mr. Dudley Williams: When the Leader of the Opposition was replying to my right hon. Friend at the beginning of this business there were only eighty-five Members opposite who thought so strongly about this Measure that they troubled to turn up.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Dudley Williams) has so little followed what I was saying that he does not understand that in so far as I was on this part of the argument I was not differentiating between one side of the House and the other. I think that both sides of the House, in the way they operate the affairs of the House of Commons, are killing the House of Commons, and I think that on both sides of the House we ought to make an effort to stop that, and that when the Government resort to measures of this nature they are plunging one more knife into vital Parliamentary democracy.
That is why I am opposed to this Measure. As I was saying, every day when the Leader of the House comes into the House he ought not to be certain that his business will go through that day; there ought to be a perpetual element of surprise, and the possibility of pressure on Ministers. That is why I am so opposed to those rules introduced for stopping the proceedings at 11.30, because that helps to kill the element of surprise. That is why we protest so often when the Speaker, although we have to abide by it and accept it, operates so narrowly, in our view. Standing Order No. 9. There ought to be much more pressure of this nature, because then there would be government by discussion—at any rate, discussion would be entering into government—instead of government by edict, which is what we have to have so often now. It so happens that I think that the collective wisdom of the House of Commons is superior to the collective wisdom of the Cabinet.

Mr. Lagden: I thank the hon. Member for his courtesy in giving way to me. I was just wondering whether the undoubted influence which the hon. Member has could be extended to getting the Leader of the Opposition also to attend this debate to hear the words of wisdom which are pouring from him. The hon. Member has criticised the Leader of the House for not being here. Now my right hon. Friend is in attendance. I am wondering whether the hon. Member's influence would be sufficient to enable a message to be sent out to the Leader of the Opposition to attend.

Mr. Foot: The hon. Member should well understand that the Leader of the House has special obligations to the House as a whole, obligations which are not necessarily shared by the Leader of the Opposition—[An HON. MEMBER: "Or by the Prime Minister."]—or by the Prime Minister even. As for my making recommendations to the Leader of the Opposition, he does not always accept the recommendations which I make and which the national interest requires. However that may be, I go on pressing him, and often, after two or three years, he agrees to the proposition I was putting to him.
I say quite seriously that I think that when this House is debating as it is


today, or as it claims to be debating today, the procedures of Parliamentary democracy, hon. Gentlemen, and even more right hon. Gentlemen, on both sides of the House should recognise that Parliamentary democracy is being debilitated by many of the operations which they conduct and by many of the methods by which they conduct the House of Commons.
As for the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Health, he should not be surprised at seeing these Measures so bitterly fought. Does he not understand yet why we hate them so much? Does he not understand the detestation of these Measures which exists not only on this side of the House but throughout the country? If he does not understand, we shall have to teach him.
There is a bitter detestation against these Measures not only because of the hardship that they impose but because of their squalor. Here we have built something fine in this country and all the right hon. Gentleman and his friends can think of is to start tearing it down. They protest, "We do not intend to do that. We want to build it up in a different way," but that is not what the right hon. Gentleman said ten years ago nor what his friends in the Crossbow organisation are saying today.
They say quite frankly what I think the right hon. Gentleman also believes in his heart—that they want to destroy this Service. We will fight them and we will use every proper method we can in the House. We will use those methods not only to fight these Bills but the whole range of Government legislation in order to be able to fight them. We intend to do it. What the right hon. Gentleman and his Government have been doing is to deface and defile one of the most splendid achievements of this country. Therefore, when we fight them, we are doing something that we believe to be in the highest interests of the country.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: About three quarters of the speech of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot) could have been supported in large degree by hon. Members on both sides of the House, because three-quarters of his remarks were not so much directed at criticism of the Motion but consisted of

interesting suggestions for the alteration and possible improvement of the procedure under which we work in the House. I do not disagree that there may be sad defects in our procedure, though I hesitate to think that we could easily remedy what has been built up by the experience of so many people and so many of our predecessors over such a long time.
I respectfully suggest to the hon. Member that implied in his remarks was a criticism of the present attitude of Governments to defeat in the House of Commons. In other words, all Governments whether Labour or Conservative construe defeat in the elected House of Commons as a somewhat serious matter. Certainly in a matter affecting a Bill which has financial aspects it has meant in most cases by convention a decision by that Government to go to the country. It is difficult therefore to see how on matters of great importance Governments could easily permit an extension of the free vote on the wide scale that the hon. Member advocates.
It has been said that the Government have put this Motion on the Order Paper when there was no improper or excessive opposition from hon. and right hon. Gentleman opposite. If my experience is at all typical, my hon. Friends have been convinced in the last few weeks that there has been something more than the opposition that one might expect to a Bill to which an opposing party objects. When my right hon. Friend the Minister of Health made his announcement and subsequently introduced the Bill, we had good reason to think that it would be fought firmly and hardly at all stages with all the ingenuity that could be mustered by hon. and right hon. Members opposite, but the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has given the game away. He has said that the party opposite will fight every Bill that the Government bring forward. Surely that gives the game away and demonstrates more effectively that any words uttered by hon. Members on this side of the House the nature of this opposition.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the hon. Member arguing that because the Opposition regards it as its first duty to oppose, the Government are entitled to apply a Guillotine Motion to every Measure that we oppose?

Mr. Gower: Not at all. The hon. Gentleman is far too old a Parliamentary hand to suggest for a moment that he really thought I was saying anything like that.
The hon. Gentleman has implied—it is not what he has said—that not only would the opposition continue along reasonable lines but that there would be something extraordinary in the way of opposition, the sort of opposition which might be calculated to wreck the Government's programme.

Mr. Silverman: Hear, hear.

Mr. Gower: By his "Hear, hear" the hon. Gentleman gives the game away just as his hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale did.
The position is that hon. Gentlemen have been saying—the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said this—that we could have got this business if we had gone on longer through the night and perhaps on successive nights. On the night to which he was referring I saw very little evidence that there was any likelihood of getting a single Clause of the Bill passed. When forty minutes or more were occupied on points of order as to who was sleeping downstairs and who was not, I do not think there was much prospect of getting a single Clause.
Like all hon. Members on both sides of the House, I have a natural distaste of methods to curtail debate. The Closure and the Guillotine are not popular. As many have pointed out tonight, it is true that they are regarded in a very different light by parties when they are in Opposition and when they constitute the Government. That goes back even to the great days of the Liberal Party, which when it was in office used methods to curtail debate more effectively and more often than practically any other Government in the history of the country.
What it amounts to is that it is proper, correct and fully consistent with the constitutional history of the country that the Opposition should oppose a Measure to the very best of its ability, but if that opposition tends to bring the whole machinery of Government to a halt and tends to wreck the whole legislative programme as we saw it even a few weeks

ago, it would surely be unreasonable for the Leader of the House and his colleagues not to come forward and say, "We must take the effective measures at our disposal to ensure the smooth passage of Government business." I should have thought that that was not a matter at which hon. Gentlemen opposite could really be surprised. In their speeches today they have expressed surprise that this should have been done, but I imagine that many of them will be as disappointed as others of us who were extraordinarily tired in the early mornings a little while ago if the Motion does not go through.
Many hon. Members have said that it is a good thing to be debating in the early hours of the morning. They more than implied that that is a sound thing. The Leader of the Opposition even spoke in terms of praise of that kind of procedure. For my part, although it is natural that perhaps occasionally the House should be kept here until the early hours of the morning or even till daybreak, I suggest when that happens three times in a fortnight after not having happened for more than a year something unusual is happening.
I do not conceive it a sound way to run the affairs of this Parliament and nation that Parliament should be sitting to the early hours three or fours clays in one fortnight. As a constituent of mine put it to me when I returned after the second week of that kind of thing, "You cannot run a very small business on that basis, and we as electors do not expect the country to be run in that way."

9.4 p.m.

Mr. George Brown: As far as I understand it, the contention of the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) is that it is the duty of the Opposition to oppose but that if they intend to oppose at all strongly it is the duty of the Government to introduce some measure which will prevent them from doing it; in other words, that Parliament shall be allowed to operate and Parliamentary democracy shall be allowed to apply within very tight limits which the Government of the day shall themselves decide. This put as crudely as the hon. Member has done it is the very same thought with which the Leader of the House opened his speech this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman gave us three reasons why this was necessary. His third reason was that the Government had approached the Opposition to see whether the business could be obtained by agreement, but as the Opposition had said that they were not prepared to make such an agreement the Government had to introduce the Guillotine Motion. This has been a very poor debate. It has been poorly attended, and the speeches we have heard from Members opposite have been directed to a limited point. But the terrifying thing is that we now have on that side of the House a built-in belief that if Parliament is ever to sit long and late and argue and oppose there is something the matter with the State of Denmark which immediately the Government should put right by introducing a Guillotine Motion.

Sir Douglas Glover: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Are we debating the legislative programme of Great Britain or of Denmark?

Mr. Brown: That remark is in keeping with the level of the debate and of the approach of hon. Members opposite to it.
The other leg on which the Leader of the House stood—and the only leg on which most of the Members opposite who have taken part have tried to stand—is that this is all part of the game—that everybody has introduced Guillotine Motions in their time, that everybody opposes it in Opposition but supports it in Government. This is an argument which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) dealt with very well in a speech which I was sorry so few Members were present to hear, and I hope that the Leader of the House will read it tomorrow. [Interruption.] I am in no hurry. The argument that everybody has done it at some time or other is one that does no justice to the issues we are supposed to be discussing or to the merits of the case.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne pointed out, the merits of the issue on which the decision has to be taken can affect very much the issue of whether a Guillotine Motion has the same enormity entailing the same consideration at all times and they have not been taken into account by Members opposite. The suggestion that this is the

same game played by all parties has been very much overdone. As it was played by the Conservative Party in opposition it was nothing like the same game as played by us.
Today, the Leader of the House made a gentle reference, with a smile, to what he called the statesmanlike words of Mr. Herbert Morrison, now Lord Morrison of Lambeth, but anybody who wants to see how this has been done by the two sides should look up, as I have done, the debates of 1947 and 1948. When we were introducing Guillotine Motions then we did not get the kind of criticism which the Government have faced from us today. We did not get a debate of the kind which we have mounted today. We were then called Fascists. The right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) set the pace with his reference to the "police Gestapo". The present Minister for Science designated us as people turning Parliament into a Reichstag, and there were references to "Fascists" and "murderers of democracy" from other Members opposite—from the people who are making today gentle references to this all being the same sort of game on whichever side of the House one is sitting. That is not the case. In 1947 and 1948 Members opposite raised uproar and indulged in abuse and interventions that do not fit in with their attitude today. Frankly, I have found a lot of this so-called decent, old boy stuff which we have had today rather nauseating. When I remember what was said then and the way in which reputations were smeared and torn to shreds then, without any regard for decency, and then I hear this appeal to us to play the game like decent, old boys, I find it very nauseating, and I want the House to know that.
The Tory Party in the House give themselves all the latitude all the time. They seek to patronise us, as they have done today, for being moderate, and they seek to rebuke us at any time when we are not being moderate. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is sitting on the Front Bench, was one of the offenders. They give themselves all the latitude and commit all the abuses all the time.
We have heard about harrying. If that is the right word, we have been at it for no more than a couple of weeks. Let us not forget that when we had a majority it was not then a game. Sick


men were harried into their graves. We remember the names of some of our hon. Friends for whom pairs were refused. Ministers were out of the country, in New York or Paris, on the business of the country. They were refused pairs and had to come back in order to maintain the Government. This talk of, "This is just the same game" is not true.
I will come to the merits of the case in a moment, but I warn the Tory Party that they must understand that this attempt to flannel—that is the only word I know to fit it—does not fit the memory which some of us have of the way they have played the game in the past. I will come back in a moment to some of the precedents. The Bills on which we used Guillotine Motions followed a very great deal of obstruction. They were Bills which had been held up for a very long time.
I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Westbury (Sir R. Grimston), who told us earlier that in his view obstruction is not unparliamentary. If the Government are relying in any part on what they think was some obstruction from us—the hon. Member for Barry, who has left the Chamber after a short speech, seemed to think that it was—then they should recollect some words used by the late Colonel Oliver Stanley on the Allocation of Time Order on the Iron and Steel Bill. They are apposite today. He said:
Hon. Members opposite, some of whom have not yet been in Opposition, will learn that, although it is quite easy to generalise about it and make it look absurd and antiquated, obstruction is sometimes the only defence which an Opposition possesses. If it is found that a Minister, as Ministers with large majorities behind them do, fails either in courtesy or efficiency, brushes aside queries and neglects criticism, the only weapon which an Opposition can bring to bear is to make that Minister's life more difficult and his work more prolonged and, finally, through this method, to bring to the House, the Leader of the House, the Chief Whip and the country the realisation that some changes are required." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, 25th November, 1948: Vol. 458. c. 1533]
All of the things that the late Colonel Oliver Stanley referred to in that passage are things which we now face. We are faced with a lack of courtesy and with inefficiency. Am I not right in thinking that three Bills or Orders have had to be withdrawn in the last fortnight

because they turned out to be incompatible with the rules of the House? We have had the brushing aside of the Opposition, and this time mostly by the Patronage Secretary who was mentioned by the late Colonel Stanley, a very respectable precedent—and the Leader of the House kept using the word "respectable"—for what we have recently had to do.
But our fight, our opposition, at this stage has hardly begun. The fact is that hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, who attend our debates so sparsely, cannot take it. This Motion has come, not as in 1947 and 1948 at the end of a long, sustained, all-out Parliamentary fight, but right at the beginning when we have never once gone right through the night and when the Government have withdrawn legislation night after night and given up. We have spent only a couple of days on one of the Bills and on the other there have been only three sittings of the Standing Committee; but immediately the Government have said, "Good heavens! We are facing intense Parliamentary argument and we must withdraw now and stick in a Guillotine Motion and prevent Parliament from getting on with its job".

Sir R. Grimston: On this theme, will the right hon. Gentleman kindly comment on the fact that the Government of which he was a Member introduced a timetable Motion on the Steel Bill before the Bill had been discussed at all?

Mr. Brown: That was exactly the point I made when the hon. Baronet was nodding. That was exactly the issue on which I tried to get his attention when he was asleep. That Motion was introduced at the beginning of that Bill, but after a long period of obstruction on the Bills which went before it. The issue is not that the Government cannot get the Bills—that might or might not turn out to be true—but that they will not try to get the Bills and have not tried to get them and in the past few weeks have not tried to get other legislation. They have preferred to pull out.
I now come to the point made by several of my hon. Friends, although I


did not agree with the form in which it was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), but there is a good deal in it. From the Leader of the House we have had many suggestions about the way in which we ought to arrange the business of the House—within proper hours and in an orderly way, picking the right things to discuss and not leaving them until the early hours of the morning and so on.
I do not accept that that is the right thing to do, nor that it is good for Parliament to do it. Nobody—not the Government, the Opposition nor a business committee—can know about this. As Sir Anthony Eden wisely said in one of our debates in 1947, who can tell what will turn out to be the important issue in a Bill before discussion of it begins? How often in our experience have we found that the vital changes which have had to be made have been on issues which were discussed least at the time the Bill was before us? The way to proceed is to allow Parliament to go through a Bill. Attempting to arrange our business in a nice cosy way leads to a good deal of weakness in legislation which would otherwise not be there.
What becomes of Parliament when we arrange our business to be nice and cosy? This Parliament ceases to be the great centre of English democracy and the great protector of our liberties, and it ceases to hold the attention of the people the moment we start arranging it all nice and cosy and tidy in here. Anyone with a minute to spare can monkey about with the precedents relating to this matter, but again, as is so often the case, the right hon. Member for Woodford put the whole business of relying on precedents very well when he referred to the late A. J. Balfour in 1904—and he could have been referring to the Leader of the House today—in these terms:
He made a fascinating speech which did not contain any justification of his proposal but was full of all sorts of animadversions upon precedents from other Governments established under totally different circumstances at other times.
He went on to say that he would not bother with them.
I turn now to the issues raised in connection with the justification of this

Motion. Little successful attempt has been made to justify it. In terms of a block in the Government's legislative programme or of the difficulty of the Government in getting through its Measures, there has been no justification. One hon. Member opposite did some sums and added up the number of hours or minutes spent at particular times on particular Bills but they merely proved that there has been a certain amount of discussion. There has not been and there cannot yet be any justification for this Motion.

Sir S. Summers: The figures to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred proved that if the time taken up on this subject had not been mis-spent on points of order and other irrelevant matters we should not be debating this Motion now.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Brown: I was here when the hon. Member spoke, which is more than can be said for most of those who are now saying "Hear, hear." In any case, that was not the point which the hon. Member was then making. He simply referred to the amount of discussion there had been. I say that that simple proposition proves nothing. The point is that if we want to justify, in Parliamentary terms, the use of this kind of Measure in order to get through the Government's business, there must be evidence that the Government are unable to get their business through. That evidence does not exist and cannot yet be produced. I do not know whether it can ever be produced in the future.
I believe that the justification for this Motion lies in the attitude of the Tory Party, which believes that the devitalising of the House of Commons is an essential matter. The reason for this Motion and what has happened in the last three weeks is not what has become of the Government's programme or even what has happened to our party in taking the action that we have done. It is a question of the effect on the public outside. When there is drama in this place and when politics are exciting, the conditions for adult political controversy exist. It is in those conditions that the public becomes interested and that we have adult discussion and create exactly the situation which the Left in politics needs. [Laughter.] Yes, indeed.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: Mr. Geoffrey Hirst (Shipley) rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Dudley Williams: Mr. Dudley Williams rose——

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Brown: It is when ideas are being argued about that there is a place for the Left in politics. it is in a situation in which there is a complete dead hand, in which there is complete dumbness, that the Conservative Party can flourish, because that is the situation that the ad-men and the hidden persuaders can use. That is the situation when Coleman Prentice & Barley come into their own.

Mr. Hirst: Mr. Hirst rose——

Mr. Brown: I will not give way to the hon. Member, because he has not been here throughout the debate and he has done nothing but interject ever since he entered the Chamber.
That is why the Conservative Party reacts so quickly to the fact that Parliament is again becoming excited. It has reacted very quickly—within three weeks—to the existence of drama and political argument in the House of Commons. The Tories want quiet meetings. They want it all arranged. They like a situation when Members come into the House either only to make a speech or to vote. That is the situation the Tories like. It is a situation which fits in with their whole outlook and philosophy. It is a situation in which Ministers can behave as the Leader of the House does, as was mentioned during the debate—not even bothering to attend the Committees in which the Government's major Bills are being dealt with.
A great deal of contempt is being shown for the House of Commons on the Treasury Bench, and it is being shown by nobody quite as much as by the Prime Minister himself. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] The late Dr. Macnamara, a notable member of the House, once said of A. J. Balfour that there were painful considerations in his mind when he thought of him. He elaborated as follows:
The first was that the Prime Minister, who should be the guardian of the liberties, privileges and functions of Parliament, had ostentatiously raised indifference—indeed, he might go to the length of saying contempt—for the deliberations of Parliament to a fine art …

What was then said about Balfour is very true of the present Prime Minister and is being taken as a pattern by those on the Treasury Bench and their supporters behind them. It is shown in their attitude in debates. It is shown by their staying away. It is shown by the distaste they have for staying up late and arguing for their Bills and facing the Parliamentary occasions.
The final and big issue in the consideration of a Guillotine Motion is not even the forcing through arbitrarily of the Measures it covers. It is what is being forced through. We heard from the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke), reflected later on by another hon. Member, the most blatant and open evidence of the difference between us on the merits of what is being forced through. The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely said, referring to these Bills, that they have nothing like the importance of a Measure nationalising an industry. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am glad that that is supported, because that betrays the whole philosophy of the Tory Party and the whole gulf between us. When it is somebody's private property, when it is somebody's right to levy profit on an essential service or industry, that is of crucial importance to the Tories; but when it is a Measure laying tax upon a large part of the nation, upon the poorer part of the nation, and upon the sicker part of the nation, that is not a matter of crucial importance to the Tories.
We fundamentally disagree with them about that. We regard the forcing through of these Measures as particularly bad because to us the very nature of the Measures for which Ministers are responsible—the "poll tax" for the Health Service, the National Insurance scheme, with its huge increases to provide the Government with more money, the prescription increases, the increased Health Service charges—all hurt folk who cannot afford to be hurt, or who can afford much less than others to be hurt.
It is for those reasons that we seek to claim our Parliamentary rights—rights that go much further back in the history of the nation and of this Chamber than hon. Members opposite ever seem to have thought about. We claim these ancient and traditional party—Parliamentary rights—[An HON. MEMBER: "Party?"] Yes, party as well, because we have a


party system in this House and have had for many years. We claim these Parliamentary rights to oppose—and to frustrate, if we can—the forcing through of Measures which we regard as harmful to so large a section of Her Majesty's poorer citizens—as these Measures are——

Mr. Hirst: The right hon. Gentleman will get the job yet.

Mr. Brown: It is easy, late at night—only too easy—for the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) and others to come in to the Chamber and just keep up a continual interjection—noises that hardly make sense, even if one can disentangle one remark from another——

Mr. Hirst: Mr. Hirst rose——

Mr. Brown: A Guillotine to force these Measures through is only possible because of the arrogance of the Front Bench, backed by the docility of the interjecting back benchers. No doubt with that docility, the Government will get their Guillotine tonight. No doubt, they will force these Measures through. We will still fight them. There are many things that cannot be guillotined, and the Chancellor, who looked so shaky at 3 o'clock the other morning, may find that he and the things he has to handle will be victims of the arrogance of the Treasury Bench tonight. We will divide against the Government, because we are sure that this is the wrong thing to do for these Measures.

9.33 p.m.

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): In the course of the very-wide ranging and, at a number of points, very entertaining debate one characteristic has been outstanding. It was recognised by the right hon. Member for Belper (Mr. G. Brown) by the very fact that he protested against it. That characteristic has been that this debate has throughout been remarkable for its good humour. That, I believe, is due to the fact that there is an underlying agreement between the two sides of the House about the constitutional position in regard to the Guillotine procedure.
My right hon. Friend quoted, and I should like again to quote, remarks made by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-

Thomas) in the Standing Committee considering the National Health Service Bill. Addressing me, he said:
If the right hon. Gentleman is concerned about time and thinks that he is not getting his Bill quickly enough, then, of course, he has his constitutional remedies. If he thinks that the Bill is being unduly delayed he has got the Guillotine, the Closure and the constitutional remedies which Parliament in its wisdom has ensured are available to him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 23rd February. 1961; c. 26.]
My hon. Friend the Member for Carlton (Sir K. Pickthorn) reminded the House that the procedure and the constitutional rules of this House are not static. They develop; they evolve, and I believe that one of the aspects of the evolution of our procedure in the last ten or fifteen years has been a recognition—and I think, too, that that recognition has been marked in today's debate—that the Guillotine has a place in our procedure; that although effective quotations against the procedure can be made from both sides of the House—and this has been referred to on a number of occasions—nevertheless the Guillotine has a function to perform and is recognised as such by both sides.
I believe the House recognises that it is always within the power of an Opposition, if they so desire it, to use ingeniously, with determination, skill and persistence, the procedure of this House in such a way as to hold up not only the business against which this activity is immediately directed but the business of the Government as a whole. I believe that the House equally recognises that when such a situation arises, it is the duty of the Government, and that it is not inconsistent with Parliamentary democracy, to follow the precedents and apply the procedure of the Guillotine.
It is, therefore, a practical decision on the part of an Opposition whether they will proceed in such a way against one or more of the Government's Measures as to force the Government to resort to these proceedings, and it is the duty of a Government to decide whether and when their overriding obligation to carry out their programme and to carry through the business of the country makes it necessary to bring in such a Motion as the House has before it tonight.
I shall refer later to the tactical decision which the Opposition took in


deciding—and they made it clear that they decided—to proceed in such a way against a number of the Government's Measures that a Motion of the kind before the House tonight would be unavoidable. But although I believe that it is recognised on both sides of the House that a Guillotine Motion, the imposition at a certain point of a timetable, is part of our procedure and has become, as it were, part of our constitution, nevertheless there are a number of things which any Government ought to show if they are to be justified in putting such a Motion before the House.
First, it seems to me they must show that the occasion for it has clearly arisen, that the Opposition are clearly using the legitimate procedure of the House in such a way as to frustrate the progress of business, and with the intention of doing so. At a number of points in today's debate it has been reccgnised very candidly from the opposite side of the House that that position indeed does at this moment exist. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), candid as often when he draws upon his experience as a past Leader of the House, declared in forthright terms that he would have had no twinge of conscience in adopting the same line as my right hon. Friend if he had been in the same position as my right hon. Friend.
Of course, the Opposition for the last three or four weeks have made no secret at all of what their intention is. They have made on secret at all of the way they intend to use the procedure of the House. They have made no secret at all of their intention to bring things to the point where such a Motion as we have before us tonight would be unavoidable.
Of course, the Motion is not before the House for the reason given initially in his opening speech by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, merely because the Opposition say that they intend to oppose the Bill. It is be-for the House because the right hon. Gentleman and the whole party behind him have made it perfectly clear that they intend, to use his words again, to fight the Bill line by line. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am not suggesting for a moment that they are not within their constitutional rights in attempting to do so. What I do say is that their avowal on this occasion makes it perfectly clear

that the case has arisen when the Government also have their duty to perform.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. M. Foot), with a great deal of whose speech, if I may say so, I had much sympathy, made it clear that this decision on the part of the Opposition relates not only to a determination to oppose and to defer an individual Measure but it must, to be effective, be carried out by opposing and deferring other elements of the Government's programme. He said, "We will fight the whole range of Government legislation in order to defeat these proposals". [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Precisely. Indeed, from our experience with the two Bills with which the Motion is concerned, it is perfectly clear that this decision is being carried into effect.
I remind the House that the principle underlying the two Bills and the other Measures associated with them was discussed in the Censure debate. On each of them, the House approved on Second Reading the principle. During the Committee stage of the National Health Service Contributions Bill, Clause 1 was debated for a longer time by far than the whole of the previous Bills of the same character which have been before the House in previous Sessions. During three sittings of the Committee on the National Health Service Bill, two Amendments have been disposed of and over two hours were spent in discussing the Motion that the Committee should sit only on one day a week. There is no doubt at all—hon. Members opposite have made no secret of it—what the purpose is. The purpose of these proceedings was not a deliberate and detailed examination of the Bill but an intention to prevent the Bill getting through.
The hon. Member for Bristol, South (Mr. Wilkins), who has been referred to before in this debate, used very clear words in the Committee, which, I think, have characterised the point of view of the party opposite, when he said that he would like to try to ensure that the Bill would get no further. He said:
… We are performing a public duty by"—
and this is what they are doing—
trying to ensure that the Bill shall be delayed for the maximum period of time which it is constitutionally possible for us to delay it".
That is what he said. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Exactly. The purpose


is delay. The Opposition are using their constitutional rights of procedure, but they are using them with the deliberate intention not of amending the legislation but of defeating it. As the hon. Member for Bristol, South said:
There is no reason at all why we should not debate this Bill in Committee right up to the end of the Session and, as I should prefer, even beyond it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 23rd February, 1961 c. 7 and 35.]

Mr. Wilkins: Just as we were exercising our constitutional rights, so the right hon. Gentleman had a constitutional right which he failed to exercise—that of the Closure.

Mr. Powell: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman, in one and the same breath, can say that the Government are being hasty in introducing a Motion of this sort and at the same time accuse them of not having previously closured the business.
I think that the Opposition have made it clear beyond peradventure—indeed, they have not sought at any stage really to conceal or deny this—that it is their declared intention to use all the resources available to them to prevent the passing of these Bills. Therefore, the situation arises in which the Government are constitutionally entitled to take the appropriate measures for getting their business through.
It seems to me that the second thing which a Government presenting such a Motion as this ought to make clear to the House is that, under the Motion which they propose, the time available for discussion of the Measures will be adequate. My task in establishing that has been rendered very easy by the course of the debate, because at no point in the debate has any criticism been raised against the allocation of time proposed in the Guillotine Motion. Indeed, I do not think it could be seriously disputed that in allowing a fortnight for the remaining discussion of the only two operative Clauses in the National Health Service Bill——

Mr. Ross: A fortnight?

Mr. Powell: A fortnight until 21st March.

Mr. Ross: How many days in Committee?

Mr. Powell: That remains for the Committee itself and for the Business Sub-Committee to decide.

Mr. Ross: Is the right hon. Gentleman really suggesting that there are fourteen days still available for discussion?

Mr. Powell: All that I have a right to say to the House is what is in the Motion, and the Motion is that the Committee should report a fortnight tomorrow. I say, therefore, that a fortnight—I think that this is clearly understood by the House—is available for considering the rest of the only two operative Clauses in the Bill.

Mr. Hugh Delargy: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that he has no news to give us about the exact number of days we are to spend on the Bill?

Mr. Powell: When a Motion is before the House which instructs a Business Sub-Committee to consider that very point, and when that decision is within the power of a Standing Committee, it would be a breach of propriety and of courtesy for me to make any such statement. What I am saying is what is in the Motion before the House, namely, that the Standing Committee is allowed until 21st March to deal with the remainder of the only two operative Clauses of the National Health Service Bill. For the National Health Service Contributions Bill, sixteen hours are allotted for the remainder of the Committee stage for the consideration of virtually the only operative part of the Bill which remains, and that is the First Schedule.
I do not believe that the terms of the Motion are regarded as unfair. They have not been challenged at any point in the debate and the Amendment which the Opposition have tabled in no way relates to the allocation of time which is proposed. The Amendment is of a very different character. It seeks to found the Opposition's objection to the Motion on the character of the two Measures concerned. It is perhaps pertinent that I should remind the House of the Amendment which we are considering, because remarkably little


reference has been made to it in speeches from the other side of the House. The Amendment is to this effect:
this House declines to assent to the arbitrary curtailment of debate upon two measures which vitally affect the welfare of the nation.
The main contention of the Opposition is that the peculiar nature of these Measures is such that, though in other circumstances the situation might justify a Guillotine Motion and the time proposed in the Motion for their further consideration is not in itself objectionable, nevertheless it is wrong that this Motion and this method should be applied to them. The hon. Member for Bristol, South, in illustration of the Motion, said that these were Measures which would have a terrific impact on the people of this country. The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) referred to it as a dismantling of the Welfare State. It is important that we should regain a sense of proportion and recognise what it is, and what it is not, that the two Measures to which this Motion relates are trying to do.
I will take the case of the Leader of the Opposition. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition in this respect is a man with a guilt complex. He said, in his defence of the circumstances of 1951, that in those days what he had proposed was a small charge on teeth and spectacles. [Interruption.] I am considering the dimensions of a Measure which is now the subject of this Motion. He said that a small charge on teeth and spectacles had to be imposed in 1951—a small charge over three years. The word which he used in his Budget speech was perhaps a little more cautious because in his Budget speech of 1951 he described them as "modest" charges.
Let us compare the "small" charges which the right hon. Gentleman imposed with the charges concerned in this Bill, "which vitally affect the welfare of the nation". The right hon. Gentleman imposed for the smallest size of denture a charge of £2. This Bill imposes a charge of 5s. in addition. For the second size denture, the right hon. Gentleman's charge was £2 5s. This Bill adds 5s. For the next size of denture, the right hon. Gentle-

man's charge was £4 5s. That is what he thought small. But an addition after ten years, after all that has altered in those ten years, of 15s. to the £4 5s. has a "terrific impact", and is a dismantling of the Welfare State".
I would be willing to take the right hon. Gentleman all through the charges for spectacles as well where the same proportions would be found to hold good. Of course, it is absolute humbug to argue that the adjustments which this Bill makes are of that character. The right hon. Gentleman, in his own words, has admitted the disparity between what he himself then thought right to do and what he now characterises as an attack on the Welfare State.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Is it not also humbug for the right hon. Gentleman to talk in this tone when this is one Measure amongst others in the so called affluent society?

Mr. Powell: This Measure is one of the two Measures about which we are having this debate. I will now come to the other Measure which vitally affects the welfare of the country. The Contributions Bill of 1958 increased the National Health Service contribution by approximately the same proportions as the present one. The Opposition thought it right to spend eight hours discussing it in Committee.
The National Health Service Contributions Bill, 1957, doubled the National Health Service contribution and for the first time made it a separate element in the stamp. The Opposition at that time did not think that more than five hours was necessary for discussing a longer Bill for that purpose in Committee. They now say that the maintenance of the National Health Service contribution at the same proportion in the financing of the National Health Service as it held in 1958, and as it was intended by them originally to hold—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—is a counter revolution.

Mr. G. Brown: That is untrue.

Mr. Powell: In 1957 and 1958, the Opposition were presented with exactly the same proposal as is embodied in this Bill and on both those occasions they did not say that it was something which must be carried to the point of obstruction and the Guillotine. They disposed


of it in Committee in, respectively, five and eight hours at a time.
The Opposition have made a serious tactical error. They believed that by forcing the Government to impose a Guillotine upon proceedings on these two Bills, they would draw attention to their arguments and that by all night Sittings, publicity would be given to the Measures to which they objected. It was a complete miscalculation. What this tactic has drawn attention to is the weakness of their own case. [Interruption.] To put the arguments, such as they are, against what the Government propose, it is not necessary to prolong debate to the small hours of the morning, nor to waste hours upon points of order.
If hon. Members opposite have valid arguments which find an echo in the country against what the Government are proposing to do, there is ample opportunity for them to deploy their arguments at the normal times and in the normal procedures of debate. Instead of drawing attention to these Measures, instead of strengthening their arguments by what they are doing, they have admitted that their case is one that they dare not argue fairly and that they must take refuge in obstruction. I believe that the country expects these

Measures to be got through with reasonable discussion and reasonable expedition and I call upon the House to reject the Amendment and to pass the Motion.

Mr. G. Brown: In the minute that we have left, may I ask the Minister whether he really means—[Interruption.]—that the purpose of the Guillotine is to save us from ourselves? If he really meant the argument that he was using—[HON. MEMBERS: Divide."]—he gave the complete case for not proceeding with the Guillotine. The Minister has produced no case for the Guillotine. [HON. MEMBERS: "Divide."] On the contrary, he has produced every reason why we should have been allowed to debate the Bill. I wish to ask the Minister, before he—[Interruption.]—

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Martin Redmayne): rose in his place, and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is——

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: If hon. Members will be able to hear me.

Question put, That the Question be now put:—

The House divided: Ayes 304. Noes 222.

Division No. 82.]
AYES
[10.0 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Burden, F. A.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Doughty, Charles


Allan, Robert, (Paddington, S.)
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(SaffronWalden)
du Cann, Edward


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Duthie, Sir William


Arbuthnot, John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Eden, John


Atkins, Humphrey
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)


Balniel, Lord
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliott,R.W.(Nwcste-upon-Tyne, N.)


Barber, Anthony
Channon, H. P. G.
Emery, Peter


Barlow, Sir John
Chataway, Christopher
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Barter, John
Chichester-Clark, R.
Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.


Batsford, Brian
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Fell, Anthony


Bell, Ronald
Cleaver, Leonard
Finlay, Graeme


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Cole, Norman
Fisher, Nigel


Berkeley, Humphry
Cooper, A. E.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Forest, George


Bidgood, John C.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Foster, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Cordle, John
Fraser, Hn. Hugh(Stafford &amp; Stone)


Bingham, R. M.
Corfield, F. V.
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)


Bishop, F. P.
Costain, A. P.
Freeth, Denzil


Black, Sir Cyril
Coulson, J. M.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.


Box, Donald
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Gammans, Lady


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Critchley, Julian
Gardner, Edward


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Bralne, Bernard
Crowder, F. P.
Gibson-Watt, David


Brewis, John
Cunningham, Knox
Glover, Sir Douglas


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. SirWalter
Curran, Charles
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Brooman-White, R.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Dance, James
Godber, J. B.


Bryan, Paul
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Goodhart, Philip


Bullard, Denys
Deedes, W. F.
Goodhew, Victor


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Gough, Frederick




Gower, Raymond
Lioyd, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Renton, David


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, Julian


Green, Alan
Loveys, Walter H.
Robson Brown, Sir William


Gresham Cooke, R.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Grimston, Sir Robert
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Roots, William


Grosvenor, Lt,-Col. R. G.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Gurden, Harold
McAdden, Stephen
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacArthur, Ian
Russell, Ronald


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
McLaren, Martin
Sandys, Rt. Hon. Duncan


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Scott-Hopkins, James


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Seymour, Leslie


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Maclean,Sir Fitzroy(Bute &amp; N.Ayrs.)
Sharples, Richard


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
McLean, Nell (Inverness)
Shaw, M.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Shepherd, William


Hastings, Stephen
McMaster, Stanley R.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Macpherson, Nali (Dumfries)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Hendry, Forbes
Madden, Martin
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Speir, Rupert


Hiley, Joseph
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Marlowe, Anthony
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Marshall, Douglas
Stodart, J. A.


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marten, Nell
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Hobson, John
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Holland, Philip
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Talbot, John E.


Hollingworth, John
Mawby, Ray
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Hopkins, Alan
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Teeling, William


Hornby, R. P.
Mills, Stratton
Temple, John M.


Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Morgan, William
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Morrison, John
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Mott-Radclyffe Sir Charles
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hughes-Young, Michael
Heave, Airey
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Iremonger, T. L.
Noble, Michael
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Nugent, Sir Richard
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Jackson, John
Oakahott, Sir Hendrle
Turner, Colin


James, David
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jennings, J. C.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Vane, W. M. F.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Johnson, Erie (Blackley)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Partridge, E.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Joseph, Sir Keith
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Wall, Patrick


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Peel, John
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Percival, Ian
Watts, James


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Webster, David


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Kershaw, Anthony
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Whitelaw, William


Kimball, Marcus
Pitman, I. J.
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Kirk, Peter
Pitt, Miss Edith
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Lagden, Godfrey
Pott, Percivall
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Lambton, Viscount
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Langford-Holt, J.
Price, David (Eatitieigh)
Wise, A. R.


Leather, E. H. C.
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Leavey, J. A.
Prior, J. M. L.
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Leburn, Gilmour
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho
Woodhouse, C. M.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Worsley, Marcus


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Quennell, Miss J. M.



Lilley, F. J. P.
Ramsden, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lindsay, Martin
Rawlinson, Peter
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Linstead, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Litchfield, Capt. John
Rees, Hugh





NOES


Abse, Leo
Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Collick, Percy


Albu, Austen
Bowles, Frank
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyden, James
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Cronin, John


Awbery, Stan
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Crosland, Anthony


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Baird, John
Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Darling, George


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshlre, E,)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Benson, Sir George
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Davies, Ifor (Gower)


Blackburn, F.
Chapman, Donald
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)


Blyton, William
Chetwynd, George
Deer, George


Boardman, H.
Cliffe, Michael
de Freitas, Geoffrey







Delargy, Hugh
Lawson, George
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Diamond, John
Ledger, Ron
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Dodds, Norman
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Ross, William


Donnelly, Desmond
Lever, Harold (Cheatham)
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Lever, L. M. (Ardwiok)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Lipton, Marcus
Short, Edward


Edelman, Maurice
Logan, David
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Loughlin, Charles
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Evans, Albert
McCann, John
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefleld)


Finoh, Harold
MacColl, James
Small, William


Fletcher, Eric
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Mackie, John
Snow, Julian


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
McLeavy, Frank
Sorensen, R. W.


Forman, J. C.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Spriggs, Leslie


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon, Hugh
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Steele, Thomas


Ginsburg, David
Manuel, A. C.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Gooch, E. G.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Stonehouse, John


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Marsh, Richard
Stones, William


Gourlay, Harry
Mason, Roy
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Greenwood, Anthony
Mayhew, Christopher
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Grey, Charles
Mellish, R. J.
Stross,Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mendelson, J. J.
Swain, Thomas


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Milian, Bruce
Swingler, Stephen


Grimond, J.
Milne, Edward J.
Sylvester, George


Gunter, Ray
Mitchison, G. R.
Symonds, J. B.


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvii (Coine Valley)
Monslow, Walter
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Moody, A. S.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hannan, William
Morris, John
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mort, D. L.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hayman, F. H.
Moyle, Arthur
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Healey, Denis
Mulley, Frederick
Thornton, Ernest


Henderson,Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Noel. Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp (Derby,S.)
Tomney, Frank


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oliver, G. H.
Wade, Donald


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Oram, A. E.
Wainwright, Edwin


Hilton, A. V.




Holman, Percy
Oswald, Thomas
Warbey, William


Houghton, Douglas
Owen, Will
Watkins, Tudor


Hoy, James H.
Padley, W. E.
Weitzman, David


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Paget, R. T.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hunter, A. E.
Pargiter, G. A.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hynd, H. (Aoorington)
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Whitlock, William


Hynd, John (Attercliffe)
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Wigg, George


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Janner, Sir Barnett
Peart, Frederick
Willey, Frederick


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Pentland, Norman
Williams, D. J. (Heath)


Jeger, George
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, Lt. (AbertillerY)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Popplewell, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Prentice, R. E.
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Proctor, W. T.
Woof, Robert


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry
Wyatt, Woodrow


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Randall, Harry
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reid, William
Zilllacus, K.


Kelley, Richard
Reynolds, G. W.



Kenyon, Clifford
Rhodes, H.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Roberts, Albert (Norrnanton)
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Howell.


King, Dr. Horace
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)

Questions put accordingly, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Questions:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 223.

Division No. 83.]
AYES
[10.12 p.m.]


Agnew, Sir Peter
Bell, Ronald
Bromley-Daveriport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter


Aitken, W. T.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Brooman-White, R.


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Berkeley, Humphry
Browne, Percy (Torrington)


AliasOn, James
Bevins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Toxteth)
Bryan, Paul


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Bidgood, John C.
Bullard, Denys


Arbuthnot, John
Biggs-Davison, John
Bullus, Wing Commander Eric


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Bingham, R. M.
Burden, F. A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Bishop, F. P.
Butcher, Sir Herbert


Balniel, Lord
Black, Sir Cyril
Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)


Barber, Anthony
Box, Donald
Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)


Barlow, Sir John
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Naim)


Barter, John
Boyle, Sir Edward
Carr, Compton (Barons Court)


Batsford, Brian
Braine, Bernard
Carr, Robert (Mitcham)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Brewis, John
Cary, Sir Robert




Channon, H. P. G.
Hobson, John
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Chataway, Christopher
Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hollingworth, John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hopkins, Alan
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Cleaver, Leonard
Hornby, R. P.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Cole, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


Cooper, A. E.
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Partridge, E.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Peel, John


Cordle, John
Hughes-Young, Michael
Percival, Ian


Corfield, F. V.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


Costain, A. P.
Hutohison, Michael Clark
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Coulson, J. M.
Iremonger, T. L.
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pitman, I. J.


Crashley, Julian
Jackson, John
Pitt, Miss Edith


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
James, David
Pott, Peroivall


Crowder, F. P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Cunningham, Knox
Jennings, J. C.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Curran, Charles
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Dalkeith, Earl of
Johnson, Eric (Blaokley)
Prior, J. M. L.


Dance, James
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho


d'Avigdor-Galdunid, Sir Henry
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Profumo, Rt. Hon. John


Deecies, W F.
Joseph, Sir Keith
QuenneN, Miss J. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfieid
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Ramsden, James


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Rawlinson, Peter


Doughty, Charles
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Redmayfle, Rt. Hon. Martin


du Cann, Edward
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rees, Hugh


Duthie, Sir William
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees-Davles, W. R.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kimball, Marcus
Renton, David


Eden, John
Kirk, Peter
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas


Elliot, Capt. Waiter (Carshalton)
Lagden, Godfrey
Ridsdale, Julian


Elliott,R.W. (Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lambton, Viscount
Robson Brown, Sir William


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, J.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Leather, E. H. C.
Roots, William


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Leavey, J. A.
Ropner, Col, Sir Leonard


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Leburn, Gilmour
Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)


Fell, Anthony
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Russell, Ronald


Finlay, Graeme
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fisher, Nigel
Lilley, F. J. P.
Seymour, Leslie


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Lindsay, Martin
Sharples, Richard


Forrest, George
Linstead, Sir Hugh
Shaw, M.


Foster, John
Litchfield, Capt. John
Shepherd, William


Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Lloyd,Rt. Hn. Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn


Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Skeet, T. H. H.


Freeth, Denzil
Longden, Gilbert
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Loveys, Walter H.
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Gammans, Lady
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Gardner, Edward
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Speir, Rupert


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Gibson-Watt, David
McAdden, Stephen
Stevens, Geoffrey


Glover, Sir Douglas
MacArthur, Ian
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
McLaren, Martin
Stodart, J. A.


Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Godber, J. B.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Studholme, Sir Henry


Goodhart, Philip
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute&amp;N.Ayrs.)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Goodhew, Victor
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Talbot, John E.


Gough, Frederick
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Gower, Raymond
McMaster, Stanley R.
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Grant, Rt. Hon. William
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)
Teeling, William


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Temple, John M.


Green, Alan
Macpherson, Nail (Dumfries)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Gresham Cooke, R.
Madden, Martin
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Grimston, Sir Robert
MannIngham-Buffer, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Gurden, Harold
Marlowe, Anthony
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Marplee, Rt. Hon. Ernest
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter


Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Marshall, Douglas
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Marten, Nell
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Turner, Colin


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Harvie Anderson, Miss
Mawby, Ray
Tweedsmulr, Lady


Hastings, Stephen
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Vane, W. M. F.


Heath, Rt. Hon. Edward
Maydon, Lt.-CmCir. S. L. C.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Mills, Stratton
Vickers, Miss Joan


Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Hendry, Forhes
Morgan, William
Wall, Patrick


Hicks Beach, Maj. W.
Morrison, John
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Hiley, Joseph
Mott-Radelyffe, Sir Charles
Watts, James


Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Heave, Airey
Webster, David


Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey
Whitelaw, William


Hinchinghrooke, Viscount
Noble, Michael
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Hirst, Geoffrey
Nugent, Sir Richard
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)




Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Woodhouse, C. M.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Wise, A. R.
Worsley, Marcus
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick






NOES


Abee, Leo
Hilton, A. V.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Albu, Austen
Holman, Percy
Popplewell, Ernest


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Holt, Arthur
Prentice, R. E.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Houghton, Douglas
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Awbery, Stan
Hoy, James H.
Probert, Arthur


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Proctor, W. T.


Baird, John
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Betienger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hunter, A. E.
Randall, Harry


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Benson, Sir George
Hynd, John (Attercilffe)
Reynolds, G. W.


Blackburn, F.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Blyton, William
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rippon, Geoffrey


Boardman, H.
Janner, Sir Barnett
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Bowden, Herbert W. (Lents, S. W.)
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowles, Frank
Jeger, George
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Boyden, James
Jenkins, Roy (Steohford)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Hoyle, Charles (Salford, West)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Short, Edward


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Slater, Joseph (Sedgefieid)


Chapman, Donald
Kelley, Richard
Small, William


Chetwynd, George
Kenyon, Clifford
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Cliffs, Michael
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Snow, Julian


Cornett, Percy
King, Dr. Horace
Sorensen, R. W.


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Lawson, George
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Ledger, Ron
Spriggs, Leslie


Cronin, John
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Steele. Thomas


Crosland, Anthony
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Stonehouse, John


Darting, George
Lipton, Marcus
Stones, William


Davies, G. Kited (Rhondda, E.)
Logan, David
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Loughlin, Charles
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stross, Dr. Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McCann, John
Swain, Thomas


Deer, George
MacColl, James
Swingler, Stephan


de Freitas, Geoffrey
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sylvester, George


Delargy, Hugh
Mackie, John
Symonds, J. B.


Diamond, John
McLeavy, Frank
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Dodds, Norman
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Donnelly, Desmond
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Thomas, Lorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Matlalieu, J.P. W.(Huddersfield, E.)
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Ede, Rt. Hon. C.
Manuel, A. C.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)


Edelman, Maurice
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Thornton, Ernest


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Marsh, Richard
Thorpe, Jeremy


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Mason, Roy
Tomney, Frank


Evans, Albert
Mayhew, Christopher
Wade, Donald


Finch, Harold
Mellish, R. J.
Wainwright, Edwin


Fletcher, Eric
Mendelson, J.J.
Warbey, William


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Milian, Bruce
Watkins, Tudor


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Milne, Edward J.
Weitzman, David


Forman, J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Monslow, Walter
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Galtskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Moody, A. S.
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ginsburg, David
Morris, John
Whitlock, William


Gooch, E. G.
Mort, D. L.
Wigg, George


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Moyle, Arthur
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Gourley, Harry
Multey, Frederick
Wilkins, W. A.


Greenwood, Anthony
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Willey, Frederick


Grey, Charles
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hn. Phillp(Derby,S.)



Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Lianelly)
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Oram, A. E.
Williams, LI. (Abertillery)


Grimond, J.
Oswald, Thomas
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Gunter, Ray
Owen, Will
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Calne Valley)
Padley, W. E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Paget, R. T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Harman, William
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Woof, Robert


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Pargiter, G. A.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Hayman, F. H.
Parker, John (Dagenham)
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Healey, Denis
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Zilliacus, K.


Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Pavitt, Laurence



Herbison, Miss Margaret
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Peart, Frederick
Mr. Redhead and Mr. Howell


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Pentland, Norman

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 305, Noes 223.

Division No. 84.)
AYES
10.24 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Farr, John
Kimball, Marcus


Aitken, W. T.
Fell, Anthony
Kirk, Peter


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Finlay, Graeme
Lagden, Godfrey


Allason, James
Fisher, Nigel
Lambton, Viscount


Amery, Rt. Hon. Julian (Preston, N.)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Langford-Holt, J.


Arbuthnot, John
Forrest, George
Leather, E. H. C.


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Foster, John
Leavey, J. A.


Atkins, Humphrey
Fraser, Hn. Hugh(Stafford &amp; Stone)
Leburn, Gilmour


Balniel, Lord
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry


Barber, Anthony
Freeth, Denzil
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)


Barlow, Sir John
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Lilley, F. J. P.


Barter, John
Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Martin


Botsford, Brian
Gardner, Edward
Linstead, Sir Hugh


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Litchfield, Capt. John


Bell, Ronald
Gibson-Watt, David
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Geoftrey (Sut'nC'dfield)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Goa &amp; Fhm)
Glover, Sir Douglas
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)


Berkeley, Humphry
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)
Longbottom, Charles


Resins, Rt. Hon. Reginald (Texteth)
Glyn, Sir Richard (Dorset, N.)
Longden, Gilbert


Bidgood, John C.
Godber, J. B.
Loveys, Walter H.


Biggs-Davison, John
Goodhart, Philip
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby


Bingham, R. M.
Goodhew, Victor
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn


Bishop, F. P.
Cough, Frederick
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Black, Sir Cyril
Cower, Raymond
McAdrien, Stephen


Box, Donald
Grant, Rt. Hon. William
MacArthur, Ian


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R.
McLaren, Martin


Boyle, Sir Edward
Green, Alan
McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia


Braine, Bernard
Gresham Cooke, R.
Mosley, Rt. Hon. John


Brewis, John
Crimston, Sir Robert
Maelean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N.Ayrs.)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Brooman-White, R.
Gurden, Harold
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
McMaster, Stanley R.


Bryan, Paul
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold(Bromley)


Bullard, Denys
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Hied (Dumfries)


Burden, F. A.

Madden, Martin


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Maccles'fd)
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Harvie Anderson, Miss
Marlowe, Anthony


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Hastings, Stephen
Marples, Rt. Hon. Ernest


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Heath, Rt. Hon, Edward
Marshall, Douglas


Carr Robert (Mitcham)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marten, Nell


Cary, Sir Robert
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)


Channon, H. P. G.
Hendry, Forbes
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)


Chataway, Christopher
Hicks Beath, Mal. W)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. Reginald


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hey, Joseph
Mawby, Ray


Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.


Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Cleaver, Leonard
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Nor or)
Mills, Stratton


Cole, Norman
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
More, Jasper (Ludlow)


Cooper, A. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Morgan, William


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Hobson, John
Morrison, John


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Holland, Philip
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Cordle, John
Hollingworth, John
Neave, Airey


Corfield, F. V.
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John
Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Costain, A. P.
Hopkins, Alan
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey


Coulson, J. M.
Hornby, R. P.
Noble, Michael


Craddock, Sir Beresford
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hon. Patricia
Nugent, Sir Richard


Critchley, Julian
Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrie


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Crowder, F. P.
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian


Cunningham, Knox
Hughes-Young, Michael
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Curran, Charles
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)


Dalkelth, Earl of
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Dance, James
Lremonger, T. L.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Partridge, E.


Deedes, W. F.
Jackson, John
Pearson, Frank (Kirkdale)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
James, David
Peel, John


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Percival, Ian


Doughty, Charles
Jennings, J. C.
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth


du Cann, Edward
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Duthie, Sir William
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pilkington, Sir Richard


Emits, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Pitman, I. J.


Eden, John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Pitt, Miss Edith


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Pott, Percivall


Elliott, R.W.(Nwcstle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch


Emery, Peter
Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kerby, Capt. Henry
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)


Erroll, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Prior, J. M. L.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Kershaw, Anthony
Prior-Palmer, Brig. Sir Otho




Profumo, Rt. Hon. John
Speir, Rupert
Vane, W. M. F.


Quennell, Miss J. M.
Stanley, Hon. Richard
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Ramsden, James
Stevens, Geoffrey
Vickers, Miss Joan


Rawlinson, Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Stodart, J. A.
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Rees, Hugh
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm
Wall, Patrick


Rees-Davies, W. R.
Studholme, Sir Henry
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold


Renton, David
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)
Watts, James


Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Talbot, John E.
Webster, David


Ridsdale, Julian
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)
Whitelaw, William


Roots, William
Teeling, William
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Temple, John M.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Royle, Anthony (Richmond, Surrey)
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Russell, Ronald
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Scott-Hopkins, James
Thomas, Peter (Conway)
Wise, A. R.


Seymour, Leslie
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Sharples, Richard
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Richard


Shaw, M.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. Peter
Woodhouse, C. M.


Shepherd, William
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin
Worsley, Marcus


Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir Jocelyn
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)



Skeet, T. H. H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)
Turner, Colin
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Colonel J. H. Harrison.


Spearman, Sir Alexander
Tweedsmuir, Lady





NOES


Abse, Leo
Gooch, E. G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Albu, Austen
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mackie, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Gourley, Harry
McLeavy, Frank


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Greenwood, Anthony
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Awbery, Stan
Grey, Charles
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanslly)
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huildersfield E.)


Baird, John
Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Manuel, A. C.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Grimond, J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Gunter, Ray
Marsh, Richard


Benson, Sir George
Hall, Rt. Hn Glenvil (Coins Valley)
Mason, Roy


Blackburn, F.
Hamilton, William (west Fife)
Mayhew, Christopher


Blyton, William
Hannan, William
Mellish, R. J.


Boardman, H.
Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mendelson, J. J.


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leics, S.W.)
Hayman, F. H.
Millan, Bruce


Bowles, Frank
Healey, Denis
Milne, Edward J.


Boyden, James
Henderson, Rt. Hn. Arthur (RwlyRegis)
Mitchison, G. R.


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Herbison, Miss Margaret
Monslow, Walter


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hewitson, Capt. M.
Moody, A. S.


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Morris, John


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hilton, A. V.
Mort, D. L.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Holman, Percy
Moyle, Arthur


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Holt, Arthur
Mulley, Frederick


Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Chapman, Donald
Hoy, James H.
Noel-Baker, Rt.Hn.Philip (Derby,S.)


Chetwynd, George
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oliver, G. H.


Cliffe, Michael
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oram, A. E.


Collick, Percy
Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, Thomas


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Owen, Will


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hynd, John (Attercilffe)
Padley, W. E.


Cronin, John
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Paget, R. T.


Crosland, Anthony
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Janner, Sir Barnett
Pargiter, G. A.


Darling, George
Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Davies. G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jeger, George
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Pearl, Frederick


Deer, George
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman


de Freitas, Geoffrey
Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Delargy, Hugh
Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Popplewell, Ernest


Diamond, John
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, R. E.


Dodds, Norman
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Donnelly, Desmond
Kelley, Richard
Probed, Arthur


Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John
Kenyon, Clifford
Proctor, W. T.


Ede, Rt. Hon, C.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pursey, Cmdr. Harry


Edelman, Maurice
King, Dr. Horace
Randall, Harry


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lawson, George
Reid, William


Edwards, Walter (Stepney)
Ledger, Ron
Reynolds, G. W.


Evans, Albert
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Rhodes, H.


Finch, Harold
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Fletcher, Eric
Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Foot, Dingle (Ipswich)
Lipton, Marcus
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Logan, David
Rogers, G. H. R. (Kensington, N.)


Forman, J. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Ross, William


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Royle, Charles (Salford, West)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh
McCann, John
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Ginsburg, David
MacColl, James
Short, Edward




Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Swingler, Stephen
White, Mrs. Eirene


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Sylvester, George
Whitlock, William


Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)
Symonds, J. B.
Wigg, George


Slater, Joseph (Sedgefield)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Small, William
Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Wilkins, W. A.


Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Snow, Julian
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)
Williams, D. J. (Neath)


Sorensen, R. W.
Thomson, G. M. (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Li. (Abertillery)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Thornton, Ernest
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Spriggs, Leslie
Thorpe, Jeremy
Willis, E. C. (Edinburgh, E.)


Steele, Thomas
Tomney, Frank
Winterbottom, R. E.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wade, Donald
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Stonehouse, John
Wainwright, Edwin
Woof, Robert


Stones, William
Warbey, William
Wyatt, Woodrow


Strachey, Rt. Hon. John
Watkins, Tudor
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)
Weitzman, David
Zilliacus, K.


Stross,Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent.C.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)



Swain, Thomas
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Redhead and Mr. Howell.

Resolved,


That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining Proceedings on the National Health Service Contributions Bill and the National Health Service Bill

>National Health Service Contributions Bill


1. The remaining Proceedings in Committee on the National Health Service Contributions Bill shall be completed in two allotted days, and shall be brought to a conclusion or interrupted, as the case may be, at the times shown in the following Table:—

Proceedings
Time for conclusion or interruption


Clause 2, new Clauses (if any) and First Schedule.
(a) To be interrupted at 11.30 p.m. on the first allotted day.



(b) To be brought to a conclusion at 9.30 p.m. on the second allotted day.


Second Schedule, new Schedules (if any) and any other Proceedings necessary to bring the Proceedings in Committee to a conclusion.
To be brought to a conclusion at 11.30 p.m. on the second allotted day.

2.—(1) Any Proceedings which, by virtue of this Order, are interrupted at a particular time on the first allotted day shall not thereafter
be resumed on that day, but without prejudice to the resumption thereof on the second allotted day.


(2) On any such interruption by virtue of this Order the Chairman shall leave the Chair without putting any question, and shall report progress and ask leave to sit again.


3. The Proceedings on Consideration (if any) and the Proceedings on Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day, and shall be brought to a conclusion at eleven o'clock on that day.


4. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule.


5. If, on any of the said allotted days, a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), the bringing to a conclusion, or interruption, of any Proceedings which under this Order are to be brought to a conclusion, or interrupted, on that day shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion under Standing Order No. 9.


6. Any Private Business which has been set down for consideration at seven o'clock on any of the said allotted days shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion (or, in the case of the first allotted day, at the interruption under this Order) of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and shall be exempted by this paragraph from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period of three hours, or, if the Proceedings on the Bill are concluded before half-past ten o'clock, for a period (from ten o'clock) equal to the time elapsing between seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.


7. When the Order of the Day is read for the House to resolve itself into Committee on the Bill, Mr. Speaker shall leave the Chair without putting any question, notwithstanding that notice of an Instruction has been given.


8. On the conclusion of the Proceedings in any Committee on the Bill, including a Committee to which the Bill has been re-committed (whether as a whole or otherwise), the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any question.

9. This Order shall have effect notwithstanding anything in the Standing Orders, and notwithstanding the Practice of the House relating to the intervals between the stages of any Bill, and Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) shall not apply in relation to this Order in so far as it relates to the National Health Service Contributions Bill.

National Health Service Bill


10.—(a) The Standing Committee to which the National Health Service Bill is committed shall report the Bill to the House on or before the twenty-first day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one;


(b) at a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any Proceedings are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the Proceedings have been brought to a conclusion;


(c) no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on the Bill or the adjournment of the Standing Committee shall be made in the Standing Committee except by a Member of the Government, and the question on any such Motion, if made by a Member of the Government, shall be put forthwith without any debate; and


(d) on the conclusion of the Committee Stage of the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any question.

11. The Proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at half-past ten o'clock on that day; and for the purpose of Standing Order No. 41 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the Proceedings on Consideration such portion of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.


12. The Business Committee shall report to the House their recommendations as to the Proceedings on Consideration, and as to the allocation of time between those Proceedings and the Proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the twenty-third day of March, nineteen hundred and sixty-one.


13. No Motion shall be made to postpone any Clause, Schedule, new Clause or new Schedule, but the recommendation of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are to be taken in the Standing Committee.


14. On the allotted day referred to in paragraph 11 of this Order Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) shall have effect with the substitution of references to half-past ten of the clock for references to ten of the clock, and Proceedings which under this Order or the Resolution of the Business Committee are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall not be interrupted under the provisions of the said Standing Order.


15. If, on the last-mentioned allotted day, a Motion is made under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), the last preceding paragraph of this Order shall not apply, but—


(a) any Proceedings on the Bill exempted under paragraph (2) of that Standing Order shall be so exempted for the period mentioned in that paragraph and a further half-hour; and


(b) the bringing to a conclusion of any Proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or under the Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day after seven o'clock shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the said Motion under Standing Order No. 9.


16. It, at seven o'clock on the said allotted day any Proceedings on the Bill which, under the Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion at or before that time have not been concluded, any Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) which, apart from this Order, would stand over to that time shall stand over until those Proceedings have been concluded.


17. Any Private Business which has been set down for consideration at seven o'clock on the said allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by the Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the Proceedings on the Bill on that day, and shall be exempted by this paragraph from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House) for a period of three hours or, if the Proceedings on the Bill are concluded before half-past ten o'clock, for a period (from ten o'clock) equal to the time elapsing between seven o'clock and the completion of those Proceedings.

General


18. Standing Order No. 12 (Motion for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business) shall not apply to any allotted day.


19. On an allotted day no dilatory Motion with respect to Proceedings on either of the Bills shall be made except by a Member of the Government, and the question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith without any debate.

20. For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any Proceedings which under this Order (or, in the case of the National Health Service Bill, under this Order or under the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or of the Business Committee) are to be brought to a conclusion at a particular time and have not previously been concluded, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall, at that time, put forthwith the question on any amendment or Motion already proposed from the Chair, and, in the case of a new Clause or new Schedule which has been read a second time, also the question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill, and subject thereto shall proceed to put forthwith the question on any amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a Member of the Government of which notice has been given (but no other amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules) and any question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded, and, in the case of any amendments, new Clauses or new Schedules moved by a Member of the Government, he shall put only the question that the amendment be made or that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.


21. The Proceedings on any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order or of the Resolution of the Business Committee shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion two hours after they have been commenced, and the last preceding paragraph of this Order shall, so far as applicable, apply as if the Proceedings were Proceedings on one or other of the Bills:


Provided that if the Proceedings are interrupted by a Motion for the adjournment of House under Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance), the time at which they are to be brought to a conclusion shall be deferred for a period equal to the duration of the Proceedings on the Motion for the Adjournment.


If any Motion moved by a Member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order or of the Resolution of the Business Committee is under consideration at seven o'clock on a day on which any Private Business has been set down for consideration at seven o'clock, the Private Business shall stand over and be considered when the Proceedings on the Motion have been concluded.


22. Paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business) and paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 9 (Adjournment on definite matter of urgent public importance) shall not apply to any Private Business exempted by virtue of paragraph 6 or paragraph 17 of this Order.


23. Nothing in this Order or in the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee or the Business Committee shall—


(a) prevent any Proceedings to which the Order or Resolution applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order or Resolution, or


(b) prevent any Business (whether on one or other of the Bills or not) from being proceeded with on any day after the completion of all such Proceedings on the Bills as are to be taken on that day.


24. In this Order "allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which one or other of the Bills is put down as the first Government Order of the day, "the Bills" means the National Health Service Contributions Bill and the National Health Service Bill, "the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means the Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee on the National Health Service Bill, "the Resolution of the Business Committee means the Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House, and any reference to Proceedings on Consideration or Proceedings on Third Reading includes a reference to any Proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of re-committal.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (CHARGES)

10.35 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I beg to move,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Hospital Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961 (Si., 1961, No. 186), dated 1st February, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled.
I take it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that it will be in order to discuss with these Regulations the similar ones for England and Wales:
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Hospital Charges for Drugs and Appliances) Regulations, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 183), dated 1st February, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): Yes, if that is for the convenience to the House.

Miss Herbison: Thank you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. This is one further attempt by the Opposition to salvage something from the repeated and disgraceful attacks of this Tory Government on the National Health Service. The Regulations are limited to an increase in charges for prescriptions to hospital outpatients. In a previous debate on other prescription charges sound, cogent and very humanitarian reasons were advanced why no prescription charges at all should be asked for, far less this shocking increase that the Government are determined to impose.
No one wishes to be ill, and certainly no one desires to be chronically ill. How fortunate are those of us who have good health and who never, or only rarely, have to use the health services. These prescription charges, which we discussed previously, hit men and women when they are ill. This is indeed hitting below the belt, and the Tories have shown very clearly in many of their Measures concerning the Health Service that they are masters of that despicable blow.
Added to the worry and strain of illness there will be this great added worry of where the money is to come from to pay for the prescriptions. In the pre-

vious debate the Secretary of State for Scotland made the second speech. He said this:
No responsible Goverment can take direct taxation to the point at which it begins to have an adverse effect on the whole economy of the country and the prosperity upon which, among other things, the yield of taxation ultimately depends."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1856.1
That doctrine has been repeated time and time again by the Secretary of State or by the Minister of Health in those or similar words. Such a statement might go down very well at a Tory women's conference attended by comfortable Tory women lapping up everything that the Tory Ministers tell them. Amongst reasonable thinking people with any social conscience at all the argument can be easily demolished.
Fortunes have been made under this Government in take-over bids alone. By a capital gains tax on these huge profits the Government could have found the money for a much larger hospital building programme than they have announced, which is one of the reasons why these charges must be increased, according to them. They could by that means have found the money not only for the hospital building programme but also for a much larger school building programme than is being undertaken at present.
The Government have announced that for hospital building we are to have an increase over the next five years of £5 million a year, but if we take all these charges on prescriptions, the charges on medical appliances, and the charges under the poll tax in respect of contributions, we find that the Government will get £65 million a year. Some of us want to know what they will do with that money, apart from these mythical hospital buildings about which we have heard so much in the last ten years.
These, of course, are not the real reasons for these charges being put on the sick: they are only attempts to cloak the real reasons. The Government's first reason is a determination, when April comes, to be generous to the Surtax payers and to those who take part in take-over bids. Their second reason is completely in line with the whole social philosophy of the present Minister of Health—and our Secretary of State for Scotland just


follows him like a lamb to the slaughter. And from what I hear in Scotland about these charges, it will be a slaughter for the right hon. Gentleman at the next election.
We have a policy pamphlet produced by the Minister of Health—though he was not Minister then——jointly with the present Colonial Secretary, and it gives his whole philosophy. In that pamphlet, the right hon. Gentleman said:
The question which therefore poses itself is not 'Should a means test be applied to social services 'but Should any social service be provided without a test of need?'

The Minister of Health (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): Will the hon. Lady, for the sake of the record—the Colonial Secretary's as well as my own—go on to tell the House that in the rest of the book we went on to say why health and education should be comprehensive and universally available services?

Miss Herbison: That was a very foolish intervention by the Minister. If, in that pamphlet they were trying to get votes and explain why health and education should be comprehensive and full, it seems very strange that the right hon. Gentleman is used as the Government's vehicle for these vicious charges that we are now discussing. No—the Minister's philosophy is like that of some very foolish people who believe that we really must hurt people to cure them—and who are the people he is hurting? They are those who are already sick; those who are already down. That seems to me a cruel and vicious philosophy.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield and Tamworth (Mr. Snow) has spent much time on the subject of drugs, and has made some important statements on it—yet we get this foolish statement from the Secretary of State for Scotland in reply to criticisms about the advertising of drugs:
… the whole object of that advertising in the long run is to increase volume and thereby to reduce the ultimate costs. It cannot be done in any other way."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 16th February, 1961; Vol. 634, c. 1855.]
The Secretary of State speaks of increasing the volume of the drugs, whether they are efficacious or not; whether they are far too expensive or not. He makes an excuse for the pharmaceutical indus-

try for the shocking advertising campaigns it carries out.
Out-patients go to the hospitals because there they get a medical service which their own family doctors cannot provide. Many of them have to travel some distance to get to the hospitals. In scattered constituencies like mine and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart), and in many other parts of the country—and it is even worse in the Highlands—our people have to pay the cost of travel to hospital. On top of all this, they are now going to have to pay 2s. for every item in a prescription. I can envisage quite a number of people stopping their visits to hospital. Many illnesses will be aggravated if the treatment stops, and we shall have our hospital beds full of people who could easily have had the treatment as out-patients. I say to the Minister of Health that if on humanitarian grounds he will not accept our case, perhaps on economic grounds he might be willing to consider it.
The impression that the Government have been giving during these last few weeks is that no hardship at all will be entailed by these charges, and that where there is hardship it will be dealt with by the National Assistance Board. The Secretary of State and the Minister of Health took quite a time in the debate on the previous Prayer explaining the arrangements. We find in the explanation of the arrangements these words uttered by the Secretary of State—and remember, this relates to someone who is ill, who has had a prescription from the doctor but has not got the money:
If, exceptionally, he has no money to pay the chemist, he can get it in advance by applying at the Board's local office.
What nonsense. Take the village in which I live. Someone is really ill. He has not the money for the prescription. He has got to get on a bus, undertake a journey for three quarters of an hour to Motherwell, get the money, take it to the chemist and get the medicine which he so desperately needs. What about the old-age pensioner on a Thursday afternoon, the day before he gets his pension? Will it be something "exceptional" if that man has not got 2s., 4s., 6s., or even 8s.? It just shows that the Government have no idea how these people have to live and how they have to look at every side of a penny before they spend it. Not


only have they no idea how these people live, but they just do not care.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Shame.

Miss Herbison: The Joint Under-Secretary says "Shame." I say to him that the actions of this Government show that they do not care at all for these old people, the chronic sick and those who are going to be worried almost out of their lies by these charges which the Government are imposing.
The Government say that those who are not in receipt of National Assistance may get their prescription charges refunded. But, as one of my hon. Friends has said before, only a quarter of 1 per cent. have been able to get these facilities. Someone may be desperately ill. He is not in receipt of National Assistance. He is given a prescription. If he is able to go to the chemist he will get his medicine, and he is given a form. Then, says the Minister:
if they post the form, an officer will visit the applicant at his home within the next few days and make a payment if one is needed."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th February, 1961 Vol. 634, c. 1859.]
If that is not administration run riot, I would not know what is.
This message that the Tory Party have been trying to put over to the country—that cases of hardship are taken care of—is one which, on examination, our people will realise is just nonsense. Again, of course, the Government know that this is so.
The increased prescription charges will cause great distress to out-patients of hospitals. There is every likelihood that they will lead to great aggravation of illness. All the medical profession is against the charges. Quotation after quotation could be given. I will give just one example of what is happening and will happen. In the town of Lanark, an old lady, on going to the chemist on the first day that the charges were raised, discovered that she would have to pay 2s. for each item. There were several items on her prescription, and she walked out without a single item of the medicine that the doctor knows that she needed.
There is no shame in this Government. There is no humanity in this

Government. They insist not only that these charges shall be made, but they insist also on trying to gag this side of the House when we wish to make a case on behalf of those who will be affected.

10.51 p.m.

Lord Balniel: I do not suppose that anyone leaps into this debate warmly and passionately welcoming any increase in charges. On the other hand, it is only right, if one supports the proposals of my right hon. Friend, that one should say that one supports them in principle. Indeed, I support not only the broad context of the proposals which we have been discussing for the past few weeks but I support these Regulations in detail.
What staggered me about the speech of the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) was that she said not a single word about the background of the Regulations. She said nothing about the increasing cost of prescriptions, except in relation to advertising, and she said not a word about the increasing part which prescriptions and drugs are playing in the Health Service.

Miss Herbison: One cannot in a short debate say all that one would like. If the noble Lord reads the speech I made when the Minister made his announcements, he will find that I had a good deal to say about the increased cost of prescriptions.

Lord Balniel: I shall certainly read the speech the hon. Lady made. One must remember that this debate is concerned with drugs, and these Regulations are at least in part necessary because of the increasing cost of drugs. It would have been relevant in her speech, which was not as short as all that, to refer to the increasing cost.
I propose to remedy the deficiency. The rise in the cost of prescriptions has been quite dramatic. Looking back to the introduction of the Health Service, the average cost of——

Mr. E. G. Willis: Look at the profits.

Lord Balniel: I shall refer to that. The average cost of a prescription then was only 3s. ld. By 1954 it had risen to 4s. 2½c1. By 1959, it was 6s. 101d. [An HON. MEMBER: "We never had it


so good."] One must recognise that this increase has arisen not only because of higher wages being paid in the pharmaceutical industry—[Interruption.]—if hon. Members interrupt repeatedly, I am quite willing to continue speaking until 11.30.
I was trying to say that we must recognise that the increasing cost of this part of the Service means that the cost per prescription has reached 7s. 3½d. on average. This is largely due to the increasing cost, and increasing quality, of the drugs being prescribed.

Dr. Barnett Stross: But will the noble Lord tell us the whole truth, namely, that they represented 10 per cent. of the total cost of the Service, and still represent 10 per cent.?

Lord Balniel: No. If the hon. Gentleman looks at the Hinchliffe Report he will see that it was 8 per cent. at the beginning, but it is now a little over 10 per cent. The cost of drugs has been increasing, and as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) elicited in an answer to a Question which he tabled recently in the House, the cost of the pharmaceutical services has increased to literally double the rate of expenditure on other facets of the National Health Service. For the purposes of his Question, he took 100 as the basic figure for 1950–51 and, using that figure, one sees that today, while the comparable figure for the National Health Service cost as a whole is 124, the cost of the pharmaceutical services is 148.
I realise—and I think all hon. Members must realise if they are honest about it—that many of these drugs are virtually life savers. Many people are relieved of suffering and misery and for that we are all very glad. Indeed, one has only to look around, not only to see that these drugs are serving this humane purpose, but that they are also a financial economy in many ways to the country. One has only, for instance, to look at the time when hon. Members opposite were in office in 1948 to remember how regional hospital boards were struggling desperately to provide help for people suffering from tuberculosis; but these hospitals and sanatoria are today being converted

to other uses. One recollects operations for mastoid; a disfiguring operation very often, but today it is most unusual. Let hon. Members think of pneumonia which, until recently, was treated in hospital over a period of weeks but which is now often treated at home over only one or two weeks.
Yet, while one recognises all this, one cannot but feel worried about the cost of the pharmaceutical services spreading and taking an increasing part of the cost, and I have not heard hon. Members opposite tell us what part of the National Health Service they would cut in order to allow of this expansion of the pharmaceutical services to take place. [Interruption.] Hon. Members may jeer, but when they were in office they were faced with exactly a similar difficulty to that which is prompting my right hon. Friend to follow his course of action which, I would remind them, was started by Earl Attlee when he was leader of the Government.
One should get the history of this subject right. We must be correct about this. Earl Attlee's proposals had nothing whatever to do with the Korean War, as has been suggested by the hon. Gentleman the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. Kenneth Robinson); and, incidentally, they had very little to do with economics. The truth is that Earl Attlee and the then Minister of Health believed that there was considerable wastage in the pharmaceutical services.
Perhaps I might quote the words of Earl Attlee at that time:
We propose"——

Mr. Ellis Smith: It does not matter what he said. It is what we did that counts.

Lord Balniel: —"to make a charge of not more than ls. for each prescription under the National Health Service.

Hon. Members: That was never introduced.

Lord Balniel: The purpose is to reduce excessive and, in some cases, unnecessary resort to doctors and chemists, of which there is evidence which has for some time troubled my right hon. Friends the Minister of Health and the Secretary of State for Scotland. The resultant saving will contribute about £10 million, although this is not the primary purpose of the charge."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th October, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1019.]


What is interesting when one looks at that debate which initiated the charges—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—or initiated the intention of the Government at the time to introduce charges, is that these proposals were welcomed by hon. Members opposite.

Mrs. E. M. Braddock: Has the hon. Member read my speech at that time?

Lord Balniel: I have not read it yet. For the moment, perhaps, I may read a speech which I should have thought was the most uncontroversial one of that debate. I see the hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. C. Pannell) present. Not only was it uncontroversial because it was his maiden speech, but it was clearly a speech which he had thought over a great deal before delivering. He said:
In regard to the shilling on National Health prescriptions, I welcome it.
He went on:
If it is a fact that certain prescriptions have cost a lot of money, then this tax will keep the expenditure down I hope, if necessary, even something more will be done, because if we have to build this thing properly we shall have to face up to the position.
So I am sure that we shall welcome the hon. Member for Leeds, West when he supports us in the Division Lobby tonight.

Mr. Charles Pannell: I make no complaint that the hon. Member has had to rely on a maiden speech, which is traditionally not interrupted and not referred to in later debates—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—but what I do complain of is a reference from the end of the speech, torn from its context, when I was arguing between the maintenance of full employment as against hypothetical cuts in the social services at a time when the Conservative Party was pleading not only for greater social services but cuts in taxation at the same time. I suggest that the speech does not stand merely on that excerpt. In any case, if the hon. Gentleman had been here this afternoon he would have known that I referred to the speech and explained it in relation to its time factor. Therefore, I do not necessarily accept his interpretation at the eleventh hour twelve years afterwards. If that is the best he can do, the Tory Party is rather hard up.

Lord Balniel: What was so interesting about the hon. Gentleman's speech—which, as I said, was a carefully delivered one and not off the cuff—was that he did not defend his action on the ground that it was a choice between unemployment and prescription charges. This is how he defended his support for Lord Attlee's proposals:
As a decent standard of life by means of full employment is built up over the years. a certain sturdy spirit of independence is created, which turns aside from Public Assistance and even from the Welfare State."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 26th Oct, 1949; Vol. 468, c. 1386.]
That seems to me to be a philosophy which we can support wholeheartedly from these benches.
What my right hon. Friend has done is to introduce, and strengthen, an element of consumer resistance into the pharmaceutical service. People so often say that because my right hon. Friend is a monopoly payer for the pharmaceutical service he is in a strong bargaining position. That is exactly what is not the position. The doctors prescribe the pharmaceutical services, the drugs, but they do not pay for them. So there is no consumer resistance on the part of the doctors. My right hon. Friend pays for all the pharmaceutical services prescribe under the National Health Service but he does not prescribe them, and so there is no consumer resistance so far as he is concerned.

Mr. Maurice Edelman: The hon. Member talks about consumer resistance from the sick and the ill. Will he say what sort of consumer resistance the Minister of Health is putting up on behalf of the captive National Health Service against the drug companies, which have been making, for years, profits which are the direct cause of the steady increase in the prescription costs? In these circumstances, would not he agree that it would be better to cut the profits of the drug companies than to impose new burdens on those who are already sick and suffering?

Lord Balniel: I shall deal with the drug companies. My right hon. Friend, in these proposals, has strengthened the course of action initiated by Members opposite—has strengthened consumer resistance so far as the patients, as customers, are concerned.

Mr. A. Woodburn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Perhaps the Minister would like a little time to conclude this debate, and presumably my hon. Friend the Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) will speak before him. I take it that the noble Lord is to conclude his speech before 11.30, when this debate must end.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Lord Balniel: I have listened to many long speeches in the last few weeks from Members opposite, and I have no intention of curtailing my own to please the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire.
I now turn to the pharmaceutical services. I urge my right hon. Friend to look with increasing emphasis at the other side of the coin. I realise the dangers of interfering with the prescribing of the doctors, and I do not see how he can introduce, on the doctors' side, much consumer resistance. On the other hand, he should look with increasing attention to the pharmaceutical industry.
Here I realise the dangers of interfering too much and so damaging the export trade, of which the pharmaceutical industry is an integral and important part, and the research element. Members opposite have, in past debates, argued ad nauseam that many of the pharmaceutical companies, which are subsidiaries of United States concerns, are making unnecessarily large profits. They must recognise that there is a danger, if we interfere too directly, of damaging the research programmes of these companies.
Members opposite jeer at American subsidiaries. They should call to their minds references in the Hinchliffe Committee's Report on the Cost of Prescribing, about United States companies:
The discovery of the first antibiotic, penicillin, opened the way to a vast volume of research into other natural sources of antibacterial agents. The most important development after penicillin was the discovery of streptomycin … by Waksman … in the United States. This was the first effective drug for the treatment of tuberculosis and, in conjunction with other drugs, still forms the basis of chemotherapy for this disease.
All subsequent antibiotics have been discovered by scientists working in the laboratories of pharmaceutical firms, almost all in the U.S.A.

When one remembers that those drugs included aureomycin, terramycin, achromycin, and spiramycin—all great antibiotic discoveries of the post-war era—Members opposite should be very careful in attacking these American firms.
I say this with a special interest, because I have in my constituency one of our great pharmaceutical companies, which is a subsidiary of an American company, and those who work in it resent the allegations and accusations, ignorant and ill-informed, made by hon. Members opposite.
On the other hand, it is right that we should look carefully at the disparity in the prices which are charged for similar drugs in this country and on the Continent. One is worried when one reads that similar drugs are sometimes cheaper in France than in this country. I ask my right hon. Friend to look very carefully into that problem.
There are certain types of illness, such as epilepsy, for which prescriptions have to be made up once every three or four weeks and very frequently these prescriptions contain three or four items. In many illnesses it is possible for doctors to prescribe a considerable amount of drugs in one prescription, but in epileptic cases doctors are unwilling to prescribe in large quantities because of the dangers of accidental or deliberate poisoning or because they wish to alter the dosage frequently. Will my right hon. Friend consider the possibility of some kind of comprehensive charge to cover these multiple prescriptions which have to be made for these rather special kinds of illness?
I welcome these proposals, in the context of the general proposals which my right hon. Friend has made, and I will certainly support the Regulations in the Division.

11.12 p.m.

Mr. A. Woodburn: We have just listened to one of the most shameful speeches I have ever heard in the House. The noble Lord—[HON. MEMBERS: "Noble?"] I have used the term, although it is a courtesy term; what he has done tonight includes very little nobility. All that the noble Lord has been talking about has no reference whatever to the facts of the


case. Nothing in the past has ever prevented people who required medicines from getting them. By what they are doing tonight the Government will prevent people from getting the medicines which they require.
It is true that people with money or with reasonable incomes will not be prevented from getting medicine. The whole of this economy will be at the expense of the people to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) referred—the old and the sick, or those with large families who require a number of prescriptions and who cannot afford to buy the medicine. Nothing done in the past ever prevented doctors from prescribing freely the medicine which the patient required or prevented the patient from getting the medicine. The hon. Member for Putney (Sir H. Linstead) made a speech the other night which showed that the chemists of the country, as well as the doctors, realise that these provisions will prevent people from getting medicine.
Imagine the nonsense of the arrangements which are to be made. The old person goes to the National Assistance Board and has to pay more in bus fare than he will save by the prescription. He collects money from the Government through the National Assistance Board, carries it to a chemist's shop some miles away and hands it over to the chemist, who hands it back to the Government. The right hon. Gentleman is arranging that we should start a noble corps of snoopers again, who will visit, by motor car, the old-age pensioner to see whether he requires medicine.
The right hon. Gentleman should admit that it is nonsense to say that the country's economy depends on depriving people of the medicines which they should have. I am not concerned about people who can afford to pay for their medicines, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that these arrangements are the reintroduction of the workhouse principle—"If you want relief, go to the workhouse "—knowing very well that people would rather starve than go to the workhouse and would rather go without medicines than follow the arrangements he has made.
Even at this late hour, I make a plea for humanity, for those people who are sick, for those who are old, or who have

large families and who cannot afford to buy medicines. I ask the Government to bring back the system by which a comprehensive medical service was available to all people.
I cannot understand how the Secretary of State or the Minister can justify saving the country at the expense of depriving some person of the medicines he needs to heal him when he is sick. That is the issue that the noble Lord evaded and about which the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) had his conscience salved the other day when he was told about this so-called equal treatment.
The right hon. Gentleman knows that the reason for introducing this circumlocution arrangement for old people to get their medicines is that they will not take advantage of it and that he will save money at the expense of having the women and children and old people thrown overboard. A State that saves itself at the expense of the women and children does not deserve to be saved.

11.17 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Robinson: The noble Lord the Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) has taken up nearly half the time which was available for this debate, and if in replying the Minister is not able to have as long as he asked, I hope that he will put the blame where it surely rests—on the shoulders of the noble Lord. I shall divide the remaining minutes between us.
I had hoped that there would be time for me to go in some detail into the arguments adduced by the Minister of Health in support of the increase in prescription charges when we last debated the matter, but I will content myself with dealing with only one. His argument for doubling the prescription charge was that the standard of living had gone up since the charge was originally fixed at 1s. per prescription. However, the Minister's proposals represent a charge of three times the charge introduced in 1952, and I do not think that the Minister would suggest that the standard of living had risen by three times in the last nine years
The Regulations against which we are praying tonight are those relating to the dispensing of prescriptions in hospitals. What will the Government


do when hospital management committees decide that they so dislike imposing these charges that they are prepared to make use of amenity funds to mitigate hardship? They have amenity funds at their disposal and I understand that in some hospital management committees proposals have been made for the use of these funds for this purpose. I hope that we shall hear the Government's view.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order. As you have just returned to the Chair, Mr. Speaker, will you make inquiries to see how many hon. Members have spoken in the debate, bearing in mind that this is an Opposition Prayer and that you have discretion to extend the time for the debate if you think that it has not had sufficient time?

Mr. Speaker: I will consider what the hon. Member has in mind, although, with respect, he has not stated it quite rightly, but do not let us lose more time now.

Mr. Robinson: The Minister told us today that he had had 900 letters protesting about these National Health Service charges and I think that he will agree that most of those have been about the prescription charges. He has had these letters because real hardship is being imposed, particularly by the prescription charge. I wonder whether we can hear whether any steps have been taken to introduce any comprehensive charges, or any further make-up of comprehensive packs for those patients suffering from chronic conditions. We have had some promises from the Ministry in vague terms, but we should like to know whether any action has been taken.
Among the letters the right hon. Gentleman has received there have certainly been some official protests from local authorities. I know that he has had one from Harlow, because I have seen a copy of it. There is a very good reason for that protest. The Minister has told us that steps are taken to see that hardship is mitigated by recourse to the National Assistance Board, but in Harlow—with a population of 52,000—the local office of the National Assistance Board is open for only two hours a week. What earthly use is that as a means of mitigating hardship to people who have to have prescriptions, often in emergencies? The fact is that

these hardships are real, and hon. Members on both sides of the House must have evidence that they are real.
I should like to quote from two letters I have received, which are typical of what we have been hearing. The first is from a pensioner aged 76, with a wife of 72 who is suffering from progressive muscular atrophy. She has had this condition for three years. This man is receiving a very modest pension and he tells me that doctors' prescriptions for his wife are made out five or six times a week for sedatives and medicines only, and that the rise now proposed means an increased expenditure from 5s. to 10s. a week, and with local rates to pay for, and day and night sick room, what can they do but refuse the medicinal items and let nature take its course? He says that all his resources have been expended on trying to effect a cure for his wife and that he now has nothing left.
The other letter is from a railway pensioner—and hon. Members know what limited resources most of them have to exist on. He says:
I might also say we have never had Public Assistance. My wife said she would rather starve, so we manage as best we can.
We know that it is unfortunate that people take this attitude, but the fact is that they do take it, in large numbers, any many people will go without the drugs and prescriptions they need, simply because they will not go for what they regard as charity, namely, National Assistance.
In winding up the debate this afternoon the Minister asked the Opposition to use arguments which had an echo in the country. I believe that of all these deplorable proposals of the Minister the doubling of the prescription charge is the most squalid. That is the view that we have expressed from this side of the House, and shall continue to express. I believe that view is echoed in the country, and that those echoes will go on reverberating until the next election, when they will sweep this Government out of office.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. A few minutes ago, Mr. Speaker, you were asked for your guidance on the question whether you would, in your discretion, allow this debate to be continued beyond half-past eleven o'clock. What you ruled on that


occasion was not clear to all of us. For our guidance, would you tell us whether you will exercise your discretion by allowing the debate to continue beyond half past eleven?

Mr. Speaker: I have no power to continue the debate beyond half-past eleven, and considerations which arise on the Standing Order I will consider then.

11.24 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): When we considered, just over a fortnight ago, the Regulations increasing from Is. to 2s. the charge on prescriptions which are provided by family doctors and dispensed by chemists, the House decided, after full consideration, to reject the Prayer which sought to annul the Regulations. Tonight we have before us Regulations which make similar increases in the charges made to hospital out-patients who receive drugs at the out-patient department of the hospital. These are a very small proportion of the total number of prescriptions dispensed in the country.
I had been expecting this evening to hear arguments from hon. Members opposite as to why—[Interruption.]—hon. Gentlemen might as well keep quiet. I hear enough of them in the Scottish Grand Committee and I am not particularly anxious to hear them now. I had expected to hear arguments as to why these few out-patients receiving medicines at hospital should be treated differently from patients— —

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the reference just made by the Joint Under-Secretary. He referred to my hon. Friend in reference to something that he says happened in the Scottish Grand Committee. Is it in order for an hon. Member opposite, who is plugging away with his brief, to make disparaging remarks of one of my hon. Friends with reference to something that is in no way connected with the debate? It is most disgraceful.

Mr. Speaker: The reference I thought I heard was not directed to any single hon. Member but to "hon. Members opposite" [Interruption.] I am quite willing to accept correction, but I

thought it was directed to hon. Members generally in the Scottish Grand Committee.

Hon. Members: Withdraw.

Mr. Galbraith: I am delighted to withdraw if I have said anything that offends the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). If hon. Members will allow me to refer to the notes I have made during the course of the debate, I may be able to answer the points which have been made.
In opening the earlier debate on the subject the hon. Member for St. Pancras, North (Mr. K. Robinson) said that this was the fifth round. I do not know what round we are at now, but it seems to me from the arguments propounded by the Opposition that they at least are punch-drunk. At any rate, I assure them that the Government do not intend to be deflected from doing what they believe to be in the best interests of developing the National Health Service.
Two points were raised by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison). One concerned the cost of drugs. The Government are very much concerned to do all they can to keep the cost of drugs to a minimum and have in fact been in close contact with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry on this matter, with recent success.
Secondly, the hon. Lady and other hon. Members said that they were very concerned about whether there might not be hardships falling upon the poorer person. My right hon. Friend on an earlier occasion gave a very full explanation of the Government's concern that hardship should be avoided and indicated how the arrangements for refund would operate. I can only refer hon. Members again to what was said on that occasion and assure the House that we will keep the matter constantly under review; although I should say that our earlier experience—this meets the point raised by the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn)—with the Is. charge leads us to believe that the Board will cope humanely and efficiently with those just above the National Assistance level.
I know that hon. Members opposite do not like being reminded of what they did when they had the responsibilities


of Government. The fact remains that under the guidance of the Leader of the Opposition they introduced the principle of charges as a means of helping to finance the Health Service.

Mrs. Harriet Slater: Not charges.

Mr. Galbraith: Yes, charges for dentures. The present increased charges—I cannot repeat this too strongly—are not a body blow aimed at the National Health Service, which has advanced by 25 per cent. under the present Government.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Question is——

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No—no point of order now.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 95A (Statutory Instruments, &amp;c. (procedure)).

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. Hector Hughes: (seated and covered): On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I asked you earlier whether you would, in your discretion, allow this debate to be continued after half-past eleven, having regard to the fact there were so many hon. Members on this side of the House who sought to catch your eye, but without success, and also having regard to the fact that the attempted reply by the Minister did not deal with the points made by my hon. Friends.
Mr. Speaker, I now repeat my request that you should, in the exercise of your discretion, allow this debate to continue beyond half-past eleven for the reasons I have given. It must be perfectly obvious to you, sitting there and looking at this side of the House, that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak, and it must also be obvious to you that this is a matter of tremendous importance to our people. Therefore, I ask you—I beg you—to allow this debate to continue beyond 11.30.

Mr. Speaker: I heard the hon. and learned Gentleman's intervention previously with great care and respect, as I heard this one, and I had an opportunity to look at the Standing Order on

considerations laid down for me; and also to look at precedents, and decided my duty to the best of my ability. I thought that the Standing Order in these circumstances obliged me to put the Question when I did. I did so, and I am afraid that I cannot change the opinion that I have formed.

Mr. Ellis Smith: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No, I am sorry—not now.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Further to that point of order.

Mr. Speaker: No, there is nothing further, I am very sorry; no disrespect to the hon. Member or to anybody else. In the discharge of my responsibility as best I conceive it to be, I have so decided and the moment has now arrived to put the Question again.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of order——

Mr. Speaker: No, I am very sorry.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I desire, Mr. Speaker, to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am very sorry; I am on my feet discharging my duty. I cannot hear the hon. Member.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I am in accordance with Standing Orders and with Parliamentary practice, and I desire to raise a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate that the hon. Member does, and I would like to hear him if my duty so permitted, but I am on my feet putting the Question, and the Question is,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the National Health Service (Hospital Charges for Drugs and Appliances) (Scotland) Regulations, 1961 (S.I., 1961, No. 186), dated 1st February, 1961, a copy of which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be annulled.

Mr. Ellis Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order is based on my memory of Standing Orders, and I should like to qualify that by saying that I have not recently seen the Standing Order and that you have the advantage. Am I correct, Mr. Speaker, in interpreting the Standing Order as follows: that Mr. Speaker has a discretion, in view of the


way that the debate has gone, to postpone putting the Question in order that we can have a democratic discussion on another evening?
If that is so, Mr. Speaker, am I correct in saying that the noble Lord on the opposite benches took at least twenty minutes and that six Members on this side, including five Scottish Members, who have sat here for the whole of the time, have not had an opportunity of speaking at all? If those are the facts. Mr. Speaker, will you be good enough to consider whether the Standing Order should not be interpreted in a way which gives you discretion to postpone the debate until another night?

Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Member. The Standing Order is No. 95A. I can refer him to nothing but the terms of the Standing Order. It was in the performance of my duty as I conceived it to be under the Standing Order and in the light of precedents available to me that I put the Question when I did. I cannot add to that.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: (seated and covered): Mr. Speaker, may I refer you to Standing Order 95A (2, a)? Why is it that we cannot give consideration to the fact that we did not begin the Prayer until 10.35, that some six minutes were occupied by the Government spokesman and the rest of the time was taken up by an hon. Member opposite and one Member of our Front Bench? Surely it is grossly unfair to exclude seven Members who want to speak, as well as not allowing the Minister time in which to give an adequate reply?

Mr. Speaker: I hear the hon. Member with the greatest interest always, and, without the slightest discourtesy to him or

to anybody else, I cannot add to what I have said. I have considered the Standing Order, and my duty, and I have so ruled.

Mr. William Ross: (seated and covered): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I take it that the Standing Order refers to occasions when the time for the debate has not been adequate, and that in your opinion the time for this debate has been adequate?

Mr. Speaker: No. I referred the hon. Member to the terms of the Standing Order, which he states more narrowly than they are.

Mr. Ross: But surely in view of the terms of the Standing Order, the lateness of the hour at which the Motion was entered upon, bearing in mind that it was moved thirty-five minutes later than the time of 10 o'clock which is mentioned in the Standing Order, and in view of the importance of the Motion—about which there is surely no difference of opinion—the time for debate has not been adequate. Those are factors which should be taken into consideration. I seriously ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider, in the light of the Standing Order and the conditions arising, that time has definitely not been adequate for the ventilation of points which hon. Members on this side of the House wish to raise.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is putting to me, and the way in which he puts it, but none the less the considerations which arise for the basis of my decision I have considered. I am very sorry. I am not retreating from it in any way. I cannot.

The House divided: Ayes 179, Noes 246.

Division No.
AYES
[11.30 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Delargy, Hugh


Albu, Austen
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Diamond, John


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Castle, Mrs. Barbara
Dodds, Norman


Alien, Scholefield (Crewe)
Chetwynd, George
Donnelly, Desmond


Awbery, Stan
Cliffe, Michael
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. John


Bacon, Miss Alice
Coltiok Percy
Edelman, Maurice


Bence, Cyril (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Edwards, Walter (Stepney)


Blackburn, F
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Evans, Albert


Blyton, William
Crosland, Anthony
Finch, Harold


Boardman, H.
Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Fletcher, Eric


Bowden, Herbert W. (Leine, S.W.)
Darling, George
Foot, Dingle (ipswieh)


Bowles, Frank
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Forman, J. C.


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)


Brown, Alan (Tottenham)
Deer, George
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
de Freitas, Geoffrey
Ginsburg, David




Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Loughlin, Charles
Roberta, Goronwy (Caernarvon)


Gourlay, Harry
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Greenwood, Anthony
McCann, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Grey, Charles
MacColl, James
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Slater, Mrs. Harriet (Stoke, N.)


Griffiths, W. (Exchange)
Mackie, John
Slater, Joseph (sedgefield)


Grimond, J.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Small, William


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mallalleu, E. L. (Brigg)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Hamilton, William (West Fife)
Manuel, A. C.
Snow, Julian


Hannan, William
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Mason, Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Hayman, F. H.
Mellish, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Healey, Denis
Mendelson, J. J.
Stonehouse, John


Henderson, Rt.Hn. Arthur(RwlyRegis)
Milian, Bruce
Stones, William


Herbison, Miss Margaret
Milne, Edward J.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. John


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Mitchison, G. R.
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. (Vauxhall)


Hill, J. (Midlothian)
Monslow, Walter
Stross, Dr.Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent.C.)


Hilton, A. V.
Morris, John
Swingler, Stephen


Holman, Percy
Moyle, Arthur
Sylvester, George


Holt, Arthur
Mulley, Frederick
Symonds, J. B.


Houghton, Douglas
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Howell, Charles A.
Oliver, G. H.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Hoy, James H.
Oram, A. E.
Thompson, Dr. Alan (Dunfermline)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oswald, Thomas
Thornton, Ernest


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Owen, Will
Wainwright, Edwin


Hunter, A. E.
Padley, W. E.
Warbey, William


Hynd, John (Attercllife)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Watts, James


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pargiter, G. A.
Weitzman, David


Janner, Sir Barnett
Parker, John (Dagenham)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas
Parkin, B. T. (Paddington, N.)
Whitlock, William


Jeger, George
Pavitt, Laurence
Wilcock, Gruop Capt. C. A. B.


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)
Wilkins, W. A.


Jones, Rt. Hn. A. Creech(Wakefield)
Peart, Frederick
Willey, Frederick


Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pentland, Norman
Williams, Li. (Abertilfery)


Jones, Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Popplewell, Ernest
Willis, E. G. (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Winterbottom, R. E.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Probert, Arthur
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Kelley, Richard
Purser, Cmdr. Harry
Woof,, Robert


King, Dr. Horace
Randall, Harry
Yates, Victor (Ladywood)


Lawson, George
Redhead, E. C.
Zilliacus, K.


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Reid, William



Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Reynolds, G. W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lever, L. M. (Ardwick)
Rhodes, H.
Mr. Short and Mr. Irving.


Logan, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)





NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Clark, Henry (Antrim, N.)
Gammons, Lady


Aitken, W. T.
Clark, William (Nottingham, S.)
Gardner, Edward


Allan, Robert (Paddington, S.)
Cleaver, Leonard
Glover, Sir Douglas


Allason, James
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Glyn, Dr. Alan (Clapham)


Ashton, Sir Hubert
Cordle, John
Glyn, Sir Rlohard (Dorset, N.)


Atkins, Humphrey
Corffeld, F. V.
Godber, J. B.


Bainiel, Lord
Costain, A. P.
Goodhart, Philip


Barlow, Sir John
Coulson, J. M.
Goodhew, Victor


Barter, John
Craddock, Sir Beresford
Gough, Frederick


Batsford, Brian
Critchley, Julian
Gower, Raymond


Bearnish, Col. Sir Tufton
Crosthwalte-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Grant, Rt. Hon. William


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gigs &amp;Fhm)
Cunningham, Knox
Green, Alan


Berkeley, Humphry
Curran, Charles
Gresham Cooke, R.


Bidgood, John C.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grimston, Sir Robert


Biggs-Davison, John
Dance, James
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.


Bingham, 'R. M.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Gurden, Harold


Bishop, F. P.
Deedes, W. F.
Hall, John (Wyoombe)


Black, Sir Cyril
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Hamilton, Michael (Wellingborough)


Box, Donald
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. M.
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. John
Doughty, Charles
Harris, Reader (Heston)


Boyle, Sir Edward
du Cann, Edward
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Brewis, John
Eden, John
Harvie Anderson, Miss


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col.Sir Walter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Hastings, Stephen


Brooman-White, R.
Elliott, R.W. (Nwostle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Heald, Rt. 'Hon. Sir Lionel


Browne, Percy (Torrington)
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hendry, Forbes


Bryan, Paul
Farr, John
Hicks Beach, Mal. W.


Bullard, Denys
Fell, Anthony
Hill, Dr. Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)


Bullus, Wing Commander Eric
Finlay, Craeme
Hill, Mrs. Eveline (Wythenshawe)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Fisher, Nigel
Hill, J. E. B. (S. Norfolk)


Butler, Rt.Hn.R.A. (Seffron Walden)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount


Campbell, Sir David (Belfast, S.)
Forrest, George
Hirst, Geoffrey


Campbell, Cordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Foster, John
Hobson, John


Carr, Compton (Barons Court)
Fraser, Hn. Hugh (Stafford &amp; Stone)
Holland, Philip


Carr, Robert (Mitcham)
Fraser, Ian (Plymouth, Sutton)
Hollingworth, John


Channon, H. P. G.
Freeth, Denzil
Hope, Rt. Hon. Lord John


Chataway, Christopher
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.
Hopkins, Alan




Hornsby-Smith, Fit. Hon. Patricia
Marten, Neil
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Howard, Hon. G. R. (St. Ives)
Mathew, Robert (Honiton)
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Howard, John (Southampton, Test)
Matthews, Gordon (Meriden)
Stanley, Hon. Richard


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral John
Mawby, Ray
Stevens, Geoffrey


Hughes-Young, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Mills, Stratton
Studholme, Sir Henry


Iremonger, T. L.
More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Summers, Sir Spencer (Aylesbury)


Jackson, John
Morgan, William
Talbot, John E.


James, David
Cleave, Airey
Taylor, Edwin (Bolton, E.)


Jennings, J. C.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Taylor, W. J. (Bradford, N.)


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Noble, Michael
Teeling, William


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Oakshott, Sir Hendrle
Temple, John M.


Johnson Smith, Geoffrey
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Jones, Rt. Hn. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Orr-Ewing, C. Ian
Thomas, Peter (Conway)


Joseph, Sir Keith
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Osborne, Cyril (Louth)
Thompson, Richard (Croydon, S.)


Kerans, Cdr. J. S.
Pannell, Norman (Kirkdale)
Thornton-Kemeley, Sir Colin


Kerby, Capt. Henry
Partridge, E.
Tiley, Arthur (Bradford, W.)


Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Pearson, Frank (Clitheroe)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Kershaw, Anthony
Peel, John
Turner, Colin


Kimball, Marcus
Percival, Ian
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Kirk, Peter
Pickthorn, Sir Kenneth
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Lambton, Viscount
Pike, Miss Mervyn
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Leavey, J. A.
Pilkington, Sir Richard
Vane, W. M. F.


Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Pitman, I. J.
Vaughan-Morgan, Sir John


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Pitt, Miss Edith
Vickers, Miss Joan


Lilley, F. J. P.
Pott, Percivall
Vosper, Rt. Hon. Dennis


Lindsay, Martin
Powell, Rt. Hon. J. Enoch
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Litchfield, Capt. John
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Sir Derek


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Price, H. A. (Lewisham, W.)
Wall, Patrick


Loveys, Waiter H.
Prior, J. M. L.
Ward, Dame Irene


Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Watts, James


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn
Ramsden, James
Webster, David


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Redmayne, Rt. Hon. Martin
Wens, John (Maidstone)


McAdden, Stephen
Rees, Hugh
Whiteraw, William


MacArthur, Ian
Renton, David
Williams, Dudley (Exeter)


McLaughlin, Mrs. Patricia
Ridley, Hon. Nicholas
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ridsdale, Julian
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Bute &amp; N.Ayrs.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)

Wise, A. R.


Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain (Enfield, W.)
Roots, William
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


McMaster, Stanley R.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Woodhouse, C. M.


Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Harold (Bromley)
Russell, Ronald
Worsley, Marcus


Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Scott-Hopkins, James



Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Sharpies, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Maddan, Martin
Shaw, M.
Mr. Gibson-Watt and


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Skeet, T, H. H.
Mr. Chichester-Clark.

ADJOURNMENT

11.43 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like your guidance on the subject in regard to which we sought redress in the points which were put to you a few minutes ago. Standing Order 95A is about ten years old, and it would seem, therefore, that it should be reconsidered at some time. I submit that the operation of the Standing Order which we have witnessed tonight can lead to an unfair result.
If we start a debate on a Prayer at 10.35, and if there be no recognition of any lateness of the hour, can it still be considered that there has been an adequate debate? Putting aside any question of the importance of the matter, if

you in your discretion give that Ruling, what happens if hon. Members legitimately seeking to speak on what is an important Prayer in these days of delegated legislation are excluded by an hon. Member who supports the Regulations addressing the House for an inordinately long time within the circumscribed limit of the time we are allowed?
I want to give an illustration of this. Of the fifty-five minutes with which we were left for the discussion of this Prayer, six minutes only were occupied by the Minister; and I do not think that he would pretend that he has adequately answered all the points which have been made, or that he has defended his Regulations.
It is fair, therefore, to say that the Minister has not assembled his points. The hon. Gentleman himself complained that certain arguments which ought to have been deployed against the Prayer could not be used; he was


not able to do so. In view of this, and the fact that the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel) occupied some twenty-five minutes of the time avail- able, is it possible, Mr. Speaker, that the Standing Order might be recon- sidered by, say, some Committee of this House, or that there might be a debate on a Motion at the initiative of some hon. Member to say "That the hon. Member do sit down and stop speaking "?—[Interruption.]—I can certainly hear the voices of the vested interests being raised now against that, but if we are to have a legitimate ninety minutes for a Prayer against a Regulation, is it in order that they should be subjected to abuse?
If they are to be abused, then I say that we should scrap the Standing Order and allow Prayers to go on all night. What we need is fair play, and the Government and their supporters ought to help here. If not, we should resort to some other Motion. If there is a Motion, Mr. Speaker, would you draw my attention to it or, if not, inform us how it is possible to satisfy the wishes of the House?

Mr. A. Woodburn: Those of us who were in earlier Parliaments had examples of the abuse of Prayers. Half of the night was often spent in discussing them, and I happened to be a member of a Select Committee of this House which ruled that abuse of Prayers should be terminated, but that the legitimate rights of the House were to be placed in the hands of Mr. Speaker so that if too short a time was allotted because of Divisions or other interruptions, or in any circumstances, Mr. Speaker might take the facts into con- sideration and use his discretion by allowing a further debate on the following night. I understood that the Standing Order was put there to protect the rights of the House against any abuse such as I think it will be agreed occurred tonight when the hon. Member for Hertford (Lord Balniel), in a short debate, occupied an inordinate amount of time, with the result that other would be speakers were cut out and even the Minister had almost no time in which to make his reply.
I should have thought that this was just the sort of circumstance which you, Mr. Speaker, might have taken into consideration in deciding that further time should be given for our debate.

Mr. William Ross: When you gave your judgment, Mr. Speaker, just now you spoke of having considered precedent; but surely each of these incidents must stand by the importance of the Prayer at the time and not merely in relation to precedent. If we are to take precedents, you have not only to give a decision, Mr. Speaker, but to create a precedent. Whatever chance will there ever be for continuing a debate if we take tonight, both in relation to the lateness of the hour and the inadequacy of the time which we have been allowed for discussion, as being a precedent?

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I might answer the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) first. Of course I look at precedents. It is what everybody in the Chairvirtually is required to do. I agree entirely with what he says, that every case must be decided on its own merits one way or the other; but I do not think it wrong to look at precedents in that context. I would say at once that in looking at precedents I do not create a new precedent by saying that the fact that discussion of the Prayer began at 10.35 p.m. does not represent a necessary reason for its adjournment over.
With regard to the intervention of the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), so courteously put to me, I accept that in general the reason for the creation of this Standing Order was very much as he said it was. I was one of the participants one way or the other in what was going on in those days. But, the House having chosen the terms of its Standing Orders, I take it that I am guided by them, though slightly confined as to considerations at which the Chair has to look. Looking at them in these circumstances, I reached the best conclusion that I could, including among the considerations the length of the speeches delivered from each side of the House in this context.
For my part, I cannot descend into the arena—if I may use that phrase—as between one side or the other. I do not seek to do so. I think we should all


deplore it if any one hon. or right hon. Member in such circumstances of obviously restricted time were to take too large a bite out of the cherry. No further than that do I think it right for me to go.
With regard to the suggestion that we should have, as has another place, a Motion that an hon. Member should be no longer heard, I think it would not be

improper to say from the Chair that one has entertained that idea. [Laughter.] Perhaps I should say no more than that. I think that on the day of a Guillotine Motion it might be better for the Chair to say nothing about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.